9121.pdf
[46.64 MB]
Link will provide options to open or save document.

File Format:

Adobe Reader

ARIZONA TOURISM RETENTION AND PROMOTION
GOVERNOR'S STADIUM PLAN "B" ADVISORY TASK FORCE
FINAL REPORT
JANUARY 31, 2000
GOVERNOR'S STADIUM PLAN "B"
ADVISORY TASK FORCE
%
January 3 1, 2000
The Honorable Jane Dee Hull
Arizona State Capitol
1700 W. Washington
Phoenix, AZ 85007
Dear Governor Hull:
We are pleased to present you with the Final Report of the "Governor's Stadium Plan
"B" Advisory Task Force." This report, unanimously adopted by the Task Force, is the
culmination of months of effort on the part of the members, technical support staff and advisory
members.
Since the initial appointment in November, the Task Force has met six times, including
an evening "Open House." The members have taken their charge seriously and have spent
countless hours researching the issues, listening to presentations, debating the merits of each
proposal and ultimately, adopting the Final Report.
You asked the Task Force to explore fbnding options for a potential professional-grade
football facility and arrive at an appropriate publiclprivate partnership. In exploring the hnding
options, however, the Task Force discovered that the potential loss of the Arizona Cardinals, the
Super Bowl and the status of the Fiesta Bowl are not the only threats facing the State's economic
base. Tourism, one of Arizona's leading industries, is being threatened by aggressive marketing
efforts in other states. In addition, the Cactus League is being threatened with the loss of teams
to Las Vegas and Florida. Based on this information, the Task Force concluded that any
proposed capital finance plan for a stadium must also address the larger issue of tourism
retention and promotion.
The Task Force proposes construction of a NFL grade, $329 million multipurpose
stadium facility. This will enable us to retain the Arizona Cardinals, ensure the continued status
of the Fiesta Bowl as a top tier bowl and vie for a Super Bowl every fifth year. The stadium
would be hnded through a publiclprivate partnership. Fifty-two percent of the hnding would be
privatelvenue related, $75 million of which will be contributed by the Arizona Cardinals. Forty-eight
percent would be fbnded by new public monies. The new monies would be raised through
a modest bed tadcar rental tax increase, paid primarily by out-of-state visitors. Only a portion of
the monies raised through these modest tax increases will go toward stadium construction. The
remaining amount would go directly back into tourism promotion and the Cactus League,
doubling the Arizona tourism promotion budget in the first year.
The Task Force firmly believes that the proposal submitted in the Final Report represents
the best interests of the State. Consistent with your charge, the proposed stadium hnding plan 1)
does not rely on a general tax increase and 2) minimizes the impact on the average Arizonan. In
fact, only $22 million of the $329 million cost of the stadium will be paid by Arizona taxpayers
This is less than the annual state taxes derived from the sporting events, entertainment, and trade
shows that are retained, strengthened or attracted through this proposal.
You will also note that the $75 million contribution from the Arizona Cardinals is well
above the national average of $54 million. And though the Arizona Cardinals are contributing
heavily to the construction of the stadium, they will retain no ownership rights. The stadium will
be owned and operated by a public authority.
The proposed plan is far more than a new football stadium. It is an investment in
Arizona's future. The total annual economic impact of events to be held at the new facility is
well over $300 million dollars. The benefit of Cactus League Baseball, which is strengthened
under this plan, is over $200 million. Finally, tourism officials estimate that the state will
receive $7 of benefit for each $1 invested in tourism, or an additional $42 million in the first year
alone.
The members of the Task Force are extremely proud of the proposal we submit to you
today in our Final Report. We encourage you to consider its recommendations and introduce
appropriate legislation to implement the proposal.
Sincerely,
Mike Wklborn
Chairman
Enclosure
cc: Senate President Brenda Burns
House Speaker Jeff Groscost
Senate Minority Leader Jack Brown
House Minority Leader Bob McLendon
ARIZONA TOURISM RETENTION AN0 PROMOTION
A SUMMARY OF THE RECOMMENDAlTONS OF THE
GOVERNOR'S PLAN B ADVISORY COMMITTEE
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM
Arizonu is fuci/ng sevucrl economic threats
P The loss of our NFL Franchise.
O The loss of Fiesta Bowl status as a Top-Tier' bowl to
Houston or another better venue.
U The loss of Cactus Leaauc teams to Las Vegasfilorida.
P The continuing loss of tourism market share seen in past
2 years (loss of share equsled $600 million).
Arizonu is presented with sme key econrwnic development
opportunities
Q With a new stadium:
O Arizona will have a SutaerBowl every 5* year.
O Major league soccer, and Pan Am and World Cup
games are Q distinct possibility.
0 NCAA Final-Four Championship Basketball.
0 We can attract maior trade shows that would like a
large, enclosed facility with seating and
electric/audio-visual in floor.
PROPOSAL
Q Construct an ML grade, $329 million multipurpose
stadium facility.
0 Retractable roof and field, with seating for 78,000 and
appropriate parking.
P Re-energize Cactus League with monies to upgrade
existing facilities as leases expire, and to attract two
new teams, including The LA Dodgers.
0 Provide immediate doubling of AZ tourism promotion
budget, quadrupling in 10 years.
P Attract major league soccer franchise to play in new
stadium in summer months.
LOCAITON
0 A new Stadium and Tourism Promotion Authority would be
created to implement this plan, to receive monies, and
enter into contracts.
Q There are two sites in Phoenix, two in Tempe, and a
shared site on the border of Tempe and Mesa under
consideration.
P The task force has developed site selection criteria for
the Authority to consider in selecting the best site for
the new stadium.
P The most important factor may be "the best deal",
meaning a locality's ability to cover all costs above the
cost of the stadium itself.
P The stadium would be owned by the public, through the
authority.
FINANCING
P 52% of funding would be private/venue related, and 48%
would be new public monies.
P The Cardinals $75 million contribution compares -favorably
to a league average of $54 million.
P The new public monies would be raised through a modest
bed tax/car rental tax increase that would keep
Arizona's tourism taxes below national averages.
P Some 85-95% of the new tax would be paid by visitors
to Arizona.
P Only $22 million of the $329M cost of the stadium would
be financed by AZ taxpayers.
O This is less than the annual state taxes derived from the
sporting events, entertainment, and trade shows that are
retained, strengthened or attracted through this
proposal.
Sources of Funding
Venue
Relate
Taxes
23%
New Tourism
Taxes paid
by Arizonans
7%
ECONOMIC IMPACT
P This plan is far more than a new football stadium for
The Arizona Cardinals. It is a bold plan to strengthen
Tourism, one of Arizona's leading industries.
0 The total annual benefit of events to be held at the new
multipurpose facility is nearly $500 million dollars.
P The benefit of Cactus League Baseball, which is
strengthened under this plan, is over $200 million.
Adding the LA bodgers would bring in an additional $30
million annuallv.
P Finally, tourism officials estimate that the state will
receive $7 of benefit for each $1 invested in tourism
promotion. This aspect of the plan would more
than offset the Arizona Taxpayer impact of the new
stadium.
1/28/00
Introduction
In November of 1999, Governor Jane Dee Hull appointed 35 of the State's top
business and community leaders to serve on a special task force to study funding options
for a NFL-quality football stadium. (Tab 1) Concerned about the potential economic
impact of the loss of the Arizona Cardinals, future Super Bowls and the Fiesta Bowl's
status, the Governor decided that "it was in the State's best interest for leaders in both the
public and private sectors to give this matter serious thought." She directed the Task
Force to research the need for a new stadium, assess its economic impact and devise a
possible funding package. Her only restrictions placed on the task force's deliberations
were that the funding package minimize the impact on the average Arizona resident. A
copy of the Governor's letter to Task Force members is at Tab 2.
The Task Force work has been highly publicized. It has held 6 meetings since
early November. Copies of the minutes from the Task Force meetings are at Tab 3. In
addition, the Task Force held an "open house" to meet with members of the public and
solicit their comments and recommendations on the proposed stadium. This was well
attended by members of the Task Force, interested citizens and the media.
Business Analysis
The 35 Task Force members approached their charge as they would any other
business decision. Before they could tackle the questions of what, where and how, they
had to ask themselves the basic question of whether it made good business sense to try to
retain the state's NFL franchise, future Super Bowls and the Fiesta Bowl's status. What
does NFL and Fiesta Bowl status mean to the state? Is a new stadium a good investment
for the State? What does Arizona gain by building a new stadium? What does Arizona
lose if it does not build one? These were all questions discussed by the Task Force at its
first meetings.
The Task Force made the following findings:
1. Arizona is threatened with the loss of significant revenues and status
if the Cardinals are forced to relocate.
NFL status affects everything from national prominence to business relocations to
tourism to tax revenues. For Arizona, this translates into big money. Since relocating
here in 1988, the Cardinals have had an estimated $1 50 million per year economic impact
on the state according to a presentation by Ernst & Young (Tab 4). In 1999,421,000 fans
attended Cardinal home games, including 1 12,000 visitors. In addition, nationally
televised Cardinal games have provided the state and the valley with priceless public
exposure. On December 19, 1999, 150 million international viewers tuned in to watcli
the Arizona Cardinals play the Buffalo Bills at Sun Devil Stadium, In each broadcast are
scenic views of Arizona that can be best described as "Chamber of Commerce shots."
Regularly, 70 million viewers outside of Arizona tune in to watch the Cardinals play.
This type of tourism promotion would cost the State millions of dollars if it had to buy
the media time itself.
Governor's Stadium Plan '%I3" Advisory Task Force
Final Report
January 2000 P a ~2e
Several states around the country have recognized the economic impact of
achieving NFL status and have built or are in the process of building new stadiums to
retain their status or to woo NFL teams to relocate. These stadiums are state-of-the-art
and are able to house on the average 70,000 fans. In Arizona, our NFL franchise plays in
a college football stadium which, by all accounts, is inadequate for professioizal football,
Super Bowls, or national championship collegiate football games. Moreover, it is the
only professional sports team to play in a college stadium. The inadequacy of this
stadium makes it extremely difficult for the Cardinals to compete economically with
other NFL teams.
2. The Fiesta Bowl's status as a top-tier bowl game is threatened by new
stadiums across the country.
The Fiesta Bowl is currently one of the nation's premier bowls. It is a member of
the Bowl Championship Series (BCS) along with the Rose Bowl, the Sugar Bowl and the
Orange Bowl. As a result of its BCS status, the Fiesta Bowl creates an enormous
economic impact for the state. According to ASU's College of Business, the economic
impact of the 1999 Fiesta Bowl was $133 million. It created 2,540 jobs, produced $12
million in state and local taxes and $44 million in income to Arizona households and
businesscs. In addition, it attracted 69,000 out-of-state visitors.
Unfortunately, membership in this Championship Series, and the status it entails,
is not permanent. Bowl sites are awarded on the basis of competitive bids. Fiesta Bowl
officials fear that future bids will not be able to compete with other cities given the new
stadiums in Houston, Seattle, San Francisco, San Diego and San Antonio. Loss of
participation in this series by the Fiesta Bowl will seriously curtail the economic impact it
has on the State. The presentation to the Task Force by Fiesta Bowl officials is attached
at Tab 5.
3. Absent a new stadium, Arizona has little chance of securing multiple
Super Bowls on a recurring basis.
The 1996 Super Bowl created an economic impact of $305 million in the state
according to a study done by ASU's College of Business, attached at Tab 6. Eighty-nine
thousand out-of-state visitors attended Super Bowl XXX, resulting in visitor spending of
$109 million. In addition, it provided the state with tremendous national and
international exposure, resulting in a windfall of free tourism promotion media. Millions
D of viewers around the country and the world were treated to views of our beautiful state
and its perfect winter climate.
Currently, those cities wishing to host a Super Bowl must make a request to the
NFL. Sites are awarded based on a number of factors, including the location, climate and
venue of the proposed site. Several cities, such as Miami and New Orleans, have hosted
Super Bowls on a regular and ongoing basis. Arizona would like the opportunity to host
a Super Bowl every four or five years.
Governor's Stadium Plan "B" Advisory Task Force
Final Report
January 2000 Page 3
Unfortunately, given the number of new stadiums going up around the country,
there is virtually no chance that Arizona, given its current stadium, will be able to secure
that position.
Preliminary Conclusions
In light of the information provided, Task Force members agreed a new stadium
would not only fend off those threats, it would provide several additional benefits
including:
the opportunity for economic development and job growth
additional tax revenues
enhanced civic prestige and pride
increased tourism revenues
enhanced quality of life
the opportunity to bring Major League Soccer to the State
the opportunity to bring NCAA Final-Four Championship Basketball to the State
the opportunity to attract major trade shows
Without a new stadium, Task Force members agreed, the State could potentially
lose its NFL franchise, the Fiesta Bowl's premier ranking and its opportunity to host
future Super Bowls. Task Force members also took note that cities which have lost their
NFL franchise have spent an average of $1 billion to get one back.
Balancing, then, the benefits and potential losses, the Task Force unanimously
concluded that a new stadium was a good investment for the State and that they should
proceed with devising a possible funding package. The mission statement originally
adopted by the Task Force is attached at Tab 7.
Recognition of Additional Threats
In the course of researching possible funding options for a new stadium, the Task
Force discovered that the potential losses of significant NFL and Fiesta Bowl revenues,
much of which comes directly from tourist spending, were not the only losses facing the
state's tourism tax base. Representatives from the tourism industry, initially concerned
about a proposed increase in bed and car rental taxes, alerted the Task Force to two
additional threats to this tax base.
1. Other states, Las Vegas and other local destination marketing agencies are
systematically beating us in tourism promotion.
According to industry officials, Arizona lost tourism market share equivalent to
an estimated $800 million in direct tourist spending in 1997 and 1998. Tliis loss is
attributable to an aggressive increase in tourism budgets nationwide. Other states and
local destination marketing agencies in the U.S. now spend a combined total of over a
billion dollars competing with Arizona and its communities for the various tourism
Governor's Stadium Plan "B" Advisory Task Force
Final Repart
.January 2000 Page 4
market segments. Las Vegas alone, has begun an aggressive $100 million per year
multimedia campaign to attract visitors, proclaiming itself the leading vacation
destination in the southwest. It has, in effect, stolen the Grand Canyon as a result of its
efforts and is intent on stealing our status as the premier golf and resort community.
ed with only a $6 million annual tourism promotion budget, Arizona can do little to
combat this onslaught, and is in danger of continuing to lose market share.
2. The future of the Cactus League is threatened by competition from well
funded cities.
The Cactus League has been a highly successful venture for Arizona, with the
economic impact from visitor spending alone conservatively estimated at $200 million
annually. Now though, in addition to Florida's Grapefruit League, Las Vegas is
breathing down our backs. For the past several years, Las Vegas has been actively
engaged in efforts to bring spring training baseball to that city. It is courting as many as
four teams, including the Dodgers, who currently train in Florida and are considering
relocation. These are teams which, traditionally, Arizona would have a good shot at
attracting. Unfortunately, Arizona no longer has resources available lo take advantage of
these new opportunities. Worse yet, many of our facilities are aging and in need of
renovation, a fact which poses a future threat to retaining our existing Cactus League
teams. Finally, at the current rate of the car rental surcharge used to fund the League,
district officials do not foresee new money being available to build new facilities or even
renovate older ones until the year 201 7. (Tab 8)
Broadening of Mission
Task Force members recognized the magnitude of these additional threats to the
State's tourism tax base. As a result, members concluded that the Task Force's original
missioi~s hould be broadened to include the protection and promotion of Arizona's
tourism industry and Cactus League and directed that any capital finance plan to build a
stadium also include resources to promote tourism retention.
Stadium Design and Construction
Tlie Task Force's first order of business after deciding that an NFL quality
stadium was needed was to assess the current state of Sun Devil Stadium. They wanted
to determine whether Sun Devil Stadium could be renovated to meet design standards
and at what cost or whether a completely new stadium was needed. The construction
firm of Huber, Hunt & Nichols gave a detailed presentation on stadium design and
construction. The presentation, a copy of which is attached at Tab 9, outlined various
design possibilities based on necessary improvements and costs. The presentation also
included a review of similar stadium designs around the country.
Based on the parameters set forth for stadium design, including climate control, a
renovation of Sun Devil Stadium was estimated to cost approximately $352 million.
Contractors also estimated a construction schedule of four to six years, assuming that
construction would be suspended between August and January to allow football to be
Governor's Stadium Plan "B" Advisory Task Force
Final Report
January 2000 Paee 5
played. A base renovation of Sun Devil Stadium of $202 inillion was considered and
included improvements to stadium comfort, accessibility, premium seating, and
concessions. However, the base renovation did not include an enclosed roof or climate
control for other than the suites.
Based on those same parameters, a completely new stadium was estimated to cost
$329 million. It would have a retractable roof and retractable playing field so that it
could be used for trade shows, concerts, and a number of other options. In addition, it
would have approximately 68,000 seats, expandable to 78,000 for Bowl games.
Construction of the new stadium was estimated at three years due to the fact that a large
amount of the upfront engineering work has already been done.
Jt should be noted that in the midst of the discussions ASU decided to withdraw
Sun Devil Stadium from consideration. Setting aside the public policy reasons for one
joint professional and collegiate stadium, the Task Force honored ASU's decision to "go
it alone." In addition, the Task Force determined that a new stadium was a better
investment. Not only would the new stadium be less expensive and quicker to build, it
would serve as a multipurpose facility to host trade shows, soccer games, concerts, and
more. Many more proposed uses for a multipurpose facility are included in a handout
prepared by the Greater Phoenix Convention and Visitors Bureau found at Tab 10.
Site Selection Process
Several cities have expressed interest in the new stadium. Representatives from
Phoenix, Tempe and Mesa all gave presentations to the Task Force on suitable sites
within each of their respective cities. On behalf of Phoenix Downtown Partnership,
Brian Keamey presented a downtown Phoenix site adjacent to and southeast of the Bank
One Ballpark. (Tab 11) The site includes 35 acres and is bordered by Seventh and 1 1 th
Streets and the Union Pacific railroad tracks and Sherman Street. Councilman Cody
Williams presented a site south and west of downtown Phoenix between the 1-1 0
Freeway and the Salt River. (Tab 12) A private citizen suggested a possible site north
and east of Van Buren and Seventh Streets in downtown Phoenix.
Mayor Giuliano presented three sites within the city of Tempe, including one
which is partially located in the City of Mesa. (Tab 13) The first proposed site is 63 acres
located in the Papago Park Center near Priest Drive and Washington Street. The
remaining two sites proposed by the City of Tempe are at the southwest and southeast
comers of the intersection of the Red Mountain Freeway (202) and the Pima Freeway
(101). Mayor Brown spoke in support of the site at the southeast corner of the two
freeways.
After reviewing these proposals, the Task Force members believed that a specific
site recommendation would be premature. In fact, the Task Force believe that the
ultimate decision on location should be made by a to-be-established Authority that would
own and operate the stadium. To assist the future Authority in the site selection process,
the Task Force adopted the following criteria:
Governor's Stadium Plian "'B" Advisory Task Force
Final Report
Januarv 2000 Page 6
1. Ability to support existing ancillary businesses and to serve as catalyst for
further development
2. Parking requirements
3. Access
4. Environmental considerations
5. Speed to delivery
6. Image and visibility
7. The "right deal" structure
8. Suitability of land parcel
The attributes listed were compiled in an attempt to initiate the process and should
not be interpreted as being all-inclusive and/or exclusive. A detailed description of the
criteria can be found at Tab 14. The Task Force stressed that while the Authority
responsible for ultimately selecting the site should consider all the criteria listed, clearly
the "riglit deal", i.e. an offer of land, infrastructure and parking, was the most important.
Capital Finance Plan: Background
In devising a possible funding package for a new stadium, the Task Force spent
several weeks gathering considerable background data on NFL stadium funding. As a
part of this effort, presentations were made to the Task Force by NFL consultants,
knowledgeable national consultants on stadium financing and from experts on Arizona
funding sources. The information presented included a review of the funding plans for
fourteen of the most recently completed NFL stadium projects in other cities, as well as a
discussion and analysis of possible funding sources that might be used in Arizona.
Copies of the information presented may be found at Tabs 15, 16 and 17.
In reviewing the funding plans used for the fourteen recent stadium financings
around the country, several important items were noted by the Task Force:
I. All of the stadium projects required some level of public funding.
2. The average public sector participation was 71% of the total stadium
cost.
3. The average private sector participation was 29% of the total stadium
cost. (21% for stadium deals without personal seat license (PSL)
revenues)
4. The average team participation in the total stadium cost was $54 million.
The Task Force also reviewed possible funding sources that might be used in
Arizona for funding a new stadium. In its review, the Task Force looked at a broad array
of possible funding sources that had been used in other stadium projects, from both
public (non-userlvenue related) sources and from private (userlvenue related) sources.
Among the public funding sources reviewed were general sales taxes, visitor taxes on
hotels and motels and car rentals, state appropriations and lottery funds. Among the
userJvenwe-related contributions were items such as personal seat licenses, ticket
surcharges, player income tax revenues, stadium revenues, stadium and user sales taxes,
Governor's Stadium Plan "B" Advisory Task Force
Final Report
January 2000 Page 7
and team contributions. The presentation prepared by CS&L, Dain Rauscher Incorporated
and Bank One is located at Tab 18.
An important finding of the Task Force was that the members would not support a
general tax increase on Arizona residents to fund a portion of the stadium. Moreover, a
general tax increase would violate the Governor's instructions to the Task Force in that it
D would not minimize the impact on the average Arizonan. This finding of the Task
Force thereby eliminated a possible general sales tax on the public as a funding
option.
Capital Plan Goals
In considering alternative funding options for a new stadium, the Task Force set
forth several goals that should ideally be met by any recommended capital plan. These
goals were based on the information gathered by the Task Force as well as from feedback
from both public and private sector participants and interested parties. Four primary
goals were set forth by the Task Force:
1. The capital plan should enhance broader tourism promotion.
In addition to funding a stadium to retain the Cardinals, the Task Force found
that the capital plan should address the broader needs of the tourism industry.
To accomplish this, the plan should provide for significantly enhanced
tourism promotion funding. It should also provide funds to protect and
improve the Cactus League. Lastly, the stadium should be a multi-use facility
able to accommodate events such as the Fiesta Bowl, the Super Bowl, and
large special sporting and other events (e.g. NCAA basketball finals, soccer,
boat shows, etc.). This is particularly important in terms of retaining the
Fiesta Bowl's position as one of the top-tier college bowls in the country.
2. The capital plan should minimize the impact on Arizona residents.
Consistent with the Governor's directives and the earlier findings of the Task
Force, the capital plan should not include any general taxes on the Arizona
public. Any new taxes that are required should be paid primarily by non-resident
visitors to the state given the positive impact of the facility on
Arizona's tourism industry. The plan should also require that a significant
portion of the revenues for the stadium should be derived from users of the
facility and from the team.
3. The privatelvenue-related contribution should exceed national averages
for NFL stadiums.
The Task Force concluded that any capital plan should require that the
privatelvenue-related contribution exceed the average contribution for recent
NFL stadiums in other cities. This would require that the privatelvenue-related
contribution to the capital plan exceed 29% of the stadium cost. The
Governor's Stadium Plall "BB"A dvisory Task Force
Final Report
January 2000 Page 8
Task Force also stated that the team contribution to the stadium project should
exceed the average team contribution of $54 million for recent NFL stadiums.
4. The plan should reflect a partnership of the affected parties.
The Task Force noted that to be successful, any capital plan will have to
represent a partnership among the many affected stakeholders, including the
Cardinals, the tourism industry, the Fiesta Bowl, other stadium users, the
NFL and the State.
Capital Finance Plan
The proposed capital plan was developed not only to meet the funding needs of
the stadium, but also to meet the other goals discussed above. Specifically, the stadium
construction would use less than half of the proposed publiclnon-venue related sources.
The remaining funds generated from those new sources could be used potentially to fund
tourisni promotion and Cactus League facilities. (Tab 19)
TIie table and pie chart below show the stadium funding plan adopted by the Task
Force. Following the table and chart is a brief description of each of the proposed
funding source components.
New Stadium
Proposed Funding Plan
Private (29%)
AZ
Taxpayers Total (in millions) % of Total
Cardinals Contribution $-0- $75 22.8%
Fiesta Bowl/Other Contribution -0- 20 6.1%
Venue -Related (23%1
Athlete Income Tax Earmarking -0- 3 6 10.9%
Construction Sales Tax Recapture -0- 11 3.3%
Stadium Sales Tax Recapture (all -0- 18 5.5%
events)
Interest Earnings on Unspent Bond -0- 10 3.0%
Proceeds
%% Bed Tax -Outcounty 5 25 7.6%
1% Bed Tax -Maricopa 15 99 30.1%
3% Car Rental -Maricopa
(excluding replacement vehicles) 2 3 10.6%
$22* $329
*Less than 7% of the total cost is paid by Arizona Taxpayers.
Governor's Stadium Plan "B" Advisory Task Force
Final Report
January 2000 Page 9
- "
ProLCLd,
1.h
Publ~cINon-Venuc Related Sources (48.3%) [11 PnvateiVenue Related Sources (5 1 7%)
Description of Funding Sources
o Cardinals Contribution - The Cardinals will contribute $75 million to construct the
multi-use facility. The basis of the Cardinals' commitment is the requirement that the
team receives on-site parking revenues from a minimum of 7,500 spaces, pays its day
of game expenses and secures a use agreement similar to the most recent NFL use
agreements. The team's commitment compares to a $54 million average NFL team
contribution for the fourteen most recent NFE stadium projects. It is important to
recognize that the Cardinals will contribute $75 million in cash but will not have an
equity interest in the stadium.
@ Fiesta BowlJOtber Contribution - A capital contribution on behalf of the Fiesta
Bowl andlor other potential users of the facility. This contribution reflects a portion
of the estimated construction cost of increasing stadium seating to accommodate the
Fiesta Bowl and/or other events.
o Player Income Tax Earmarking (NFL) - Funds would be provided for the project
by dedicating income tax collections on Cardinals players and newly captured income
tax on visiting NFL players. Collection of taxes fiom out-of-state players for
Arizona's other professional sports for income earned in Arizona would be a new
source of revenue to the State. (Tab 20)
o State Sales Tax Recapture - The State sales taxes collected on stadium construction
and ongoing sales at the facility would be dedicated to the project. Without the
project, these taxes would not be collected.
o Interest Earnings on Bond Proceeds - Estimated interest earnings on bond
proceeds prior to expenditure for facility construction would be used for part of the
capital costs.
Bed Tax - A new 0.50% bed tax levied statewide (outside Maricopa County) and a
new 1.0% bed tax levied within Maricopa County. Compared to bed tax rates in
other metropolitan areas, these increases will not place Arizona's tourism industry in
Governor's Stadium Plan "B" Advisory Task Force
Final Report
January 2000 Pape 10
a non-competitive position. (Tab 21) Furthermore, a portion of these funds will be
invested to promote increased Arizona tourism.
@ Rental Car Tax -A new 3.0% tax on car rental sales in Maricopa County, with a
minimum of $2.50 per rental contract. This new tax structure would replace the
existing $2.50 car rental surcharge. The amount of the tax exceeding $2.50 per
contract would be dedicated to facility construction, to tourism promotion, and for
Cactus League facility improvements. While Arizona's rental car tax will be higher
than many other areas, our average daily rental rates are significantly below average,
thus resulting in a lower absolute impact of the tax. (Tab 22) In addition, the intent of
the plan is to exclude rentals for replacement vehicles from the additional tax, further
reducing the impact on Arizona residents.
It is the recommendation of the Task Force that a tourism and stadium authority
be created by the State. This authority would be responsible for overseeing the design
and construction of the new stadium and upon completion will own and operate the
stadium. The authority would enter into an operating agreement with a professional
facility management firm to provide for day-to-day operations. The management firm
would also be responsible for marketing the facility to special users.
The authority would also enter into use agreements with entities that will make
regular use of the facility, such as the Arizona Cardinals, the Fiesta Bowl and, perhaps, a
professional soccer team. The Cardinals use agreement would include provisions locking
in the team's contribution to construction costs and game day operating expenses. In
exchange, it would provide for the team to receive all revenues generated in connection
with the team's use of the facility including tickets, premium seating, concessions,
interior and exterior advertising, parking, etc. The team would also receive any naming
rights revenues reIated to the facility. The authority would receive revenue generated by
all other uses of the stadium.
Public Input
As noted earlier, an "Open House" meeting of the Task Force was held January
18"', 2000 at the SRP-PERA Club. The purpose was to provide citizens with the
opportunity to speak with Task Force members and others directly involved in the
process. In addition to booths devoted to the proposed stadium facility and financing,
representatives from the Arizona Cardinals, the Fiesta Bowl, the Cactus League, Arizona
Office of Tourism, Phoenix, Mesa and Tempe all hosted information booths.
The event proved highly informative. Approximately 250 citizens attended. Most of the
attendees were positive and supported the Task Force's efforts. However, even those
negatively disposed to the stadium appreciated the opportunity to meet with Task Force
members and exhibitors. The majority of attendees were concerned about four issues:
site location, ratio of public vs. private funding, avoidance of a public vote and the Fiesta
Bowl's future.
Governor's Stadium Plan "'B" Advisory Task Force
Final Report
January 2000 Page 11
Attendees were encouraged to fill out a survey, attached at Tab 23, with their thoughts
and suggestions. Sample feedback from surveys, both positive and negative, is included
at Tab 24. A Task Force summary of the event is included at Tab 25.
According to a poll conducted January 6-1 1,2000 by the Arizona Chamber of
Conlmerce, Arizona voters favor using tourism-based taxes to help pay for a new stadium
to house the NFL's Arizona Cardinals, future Super Bowls and the Fiesta Bowl. The
survey found that 56 percent of respondents favored using tourism taxes, of which most
are paid by out-of-state visitors, to pay for the public portion of any new stadium project.
The statewide survey also found that 21 percent oppose such a funding plan. Nearly a
quarter of those surveyed were undecided on the publidprivate funding plan. A copy of
the complete survey is at Tab 26.
Conclusion
This plan is far more than a new football stadium for the Arizona Cardinals. It is
a bold plan designed to enhance broader tourism promotion in Arizona. In addition to
funding a NFL-quality stadium to retain the Cardinals, it provides a venue for allowing
the Fiesta Bowl to remain a top-tier college bowl game and for regularly hosting the
Super Bowl. The plan further strengthens Arizona's tourism industry by providing for a
dedicated and growing revenue stream for tourism advertising and promotion, and
provides significant funding to protect and improve the state's Cactus League baseball
facilities.
Consistent with Governor Hull's charge, the capital plan minimizes the impact on
Arizona residents. It accomplishes this by funding a new stadium through "user"
contributions such as earmarked income tax revenue from NFL players, recaptured sales
taxes from the stadium itself, sizable capital contribution from the Cardinals, the Fiesta
Bowl and other users, and from "beneficiary7' contributions. The beneficiary (tourism)
contributions come from a small increase in the current hospitality and car rental taxes,
which are paid primarily by visitors to the State. In fact, only 7% of the entire $329
million stadium construction cost will be paid by Arizona taxpayers.
Overall, the plan provides that contributions from privatelvenue related sources
are 52% of the stadium's projected cost, significantly higher than the average of 29% for
recent NFL stadiums across the country. Similarly, the capital contribution by the
Cardinals of $75 million is well above the average team contribution for other NFL
stadiums of $54 million.
The Task Force firmly believes that their proposed capital plan is a "win-win"
solution for everyone. Most importantly, it is a win for the Arizona economy and
Arizona taxpayers. This plan helps ensure the continuation of major sporting events with
an annual economic impact of over $550 million per year. The additional tourism
promotion will return $7 for every $1 invested. On this basis alone, the State would
recoup its investment in the new stadium. The proceeds of the financing plan are all
Governor's Stadium Plan "'B" Advisory Task Force
Final Report
1
invested in Arizona, even though much of the financing comes from outside. During the
three years of construction, some 3,000 jobs will be generated. There are few, if any,
investments the State could make that would result in such a windfall.
The Task Force concludes that it is in the State's best interest to proceed with this
proposal as quickly as possible. It recommends that legislation be drafted to:
1. Establish a ""Tourism and Sports Retention Authority9' (the 66Authority")
2. Grant the AuthoriQ the power to establish a fund for stadium construction
3. Authorize the Authority to levy a statewide bed tax (excluding Maricopa
County) of 0.50% and a Maricopa County bed tax of 1.0%, the proceeds of
which are to be used for stadium construction and tourism promotion
4. Authorize the Authority to levy a car rental tax of 3% in Maricopa County, with
a minimum of $2.50 per rental contract, the proceeds of which are to be used for
stadium construction, tourism promotion and Cactus League
5. Authorize the AuthoriQ to recapture state sales taxes collected on construction
of the stadium and ongoing sales at the facility.
6. Direct that the proceeds from income tax collection on Cardinals players and
visiting NFL players will go into the stadium construction fund established by
the Authority
7. Direct that the interest earnings on bond proceeds will go into the stadium
construction hnd established by the Authority.
8. Grant the Authority all mnecessary powers to construct, own and operate a
multipurpose facility.
The Task Force urges the Governor and members of the Legislature to fully consider the
capital funding plan contained in this report and adopt the proposal.
INDEX
Plan "B" Task Force Membership List ...............................................................................1
Governor Hull's Letter Appointing Task Force Members .................................................2.
Minutes from Task Force Meetings:
11/22/99.12/2/99.12/16/99~1/14/001. /21/00 ......................................................................3
Economic Impact Presentation by Ernst & Young (Handout) ..........................................4.
Fiesta Bowl Presentation (Handout) .................................................................................5..
Economic Impact of Super Bowl XXX Study Done by
ASU College of Business ............................................................................................... 6
Task Force's Original Mission Statement .......................................................................... 7
List of Current Cactus Lease Teams and Lease Expirations ..............................................8.
Stadium Design Presentation by Huber. Hunt & Nichols ..................................................9.
Proposed Uses for Multipurpose Facility Presentation
by Greater Phoenix Convention and Visitors Bureau ....................................................1.0
City of Phoenix Site Proposal ........................................................................................1.1..
Councilman Cody Williams' Site Proposal ...................................................................1..2.
Letter from Mayor Giuliano Proposing Tempe Sites ......................................................1..3
Site Selection Criteria Adopted by Task Force ............................................................... 14
Presentation by CS&L on Stadium Projects Nationwide .................................................. 15
D Memorandum from Rick Horrow Regarding Stadium Project in Pennsylvania ...............1 6
Handout Regarding Stadium Funding Sources in Other States ........................................1 7
Presentation by CS&L. Dain Rauscher Incorporated and
Bank One on Potential Funding Sources .....................................................................1..8.
Revenue Projection Table and Explanation .................................................................... 19
Memorandum from Gallagher & Kennedy Regarding "State Taxation of
Non-Resident Professional Athletes" ..........................................................................2..0..
Bed Tax Comparison for Comparable Markets .............................................................2..1.
Rental Car Rate Comparison for Comparable Markets ..................................................2..2
"Open House" Survey ..................................................................................................2..3.. .
Sample "Open House" Feedback .................................................................................... 24
Task Force Summary of "Open House" .........................................................................2..5.
Arizona Chamber of Commerce Poll .............................................................................2..6.
Governor's Stadium Plan "B" Advisory Task Force
Mike Welborn, Chairman
Eddie Basha
Ron Bergamo
David Beckham
Craig Berge
Mike Bidwill
Dave Brown
Drew Brown
Richard Burke
Don Carson
Jerry Colangelo
Bob Delgado
Joe Desplinter
George Evans
Bob Fannin
Bill Franke
Jim Grogan
Gregg Holmes
Robert C. Hunt
Frank Kush
Bob Lavinia
Bob Marshall
Mark McDermott
Denise Meridith
Arte Moreno
D
Linda Brock Nelson
John Ogden
William Peltier
William Post
David Radcliffe
Barbara Ralston
Dick Silverman
Don Ulnch
Steve Wheeler
Karen Wittmer
Ex-Officio Members (Nonvoting)
Ted Ferris
Jimmy Jayne
Mark Swenson
Technical Support Members
Chris Baier
Steve Betts
J. Brian Smith
MEMBERSHIP
Bank One
Bashas' Markets Inc.
KWBA TV
Lyon & Beckham
Berge Ford
Arizona Cardinals
Northern Arizona University
DMB Associates, Inc.
Phoenix Coyotes
Don & Charlie's
Arizona Diamondbacks
Hensley & Company
Ernst & Young
Evans Kuhn & Assoc., Inc.
Steptoe & Johnson
America West Airlines
Samoth Capital Corp.
Cox Communications
Huber, Hunt & Nichols
Former ASU Football Coach
Tosco Marketing Company
Arizona Office of Tourism
Greater Phoenix Black Chamber of Commerce
Outdoor Systems Advertising
LBN Associates, L.L.C.
SunCor Development Company
ViAD Corp.
Arizona Public Service Company
Greater Phoenix Convention &Visitors Bureau
Camelback Community Bank
SRP
RSI Enterprises
Snell & Wilmer
The Tribune
Office of the Governor
Arizona House of Representatives
Arizona State Senate
Department of Commerce
Gallagher & Kennedy
Smith & Harroff, Inc.
JANE DEE HULL
GOVERNOR
STATEOF ARIZONA
November 5,1999
I am writing to ask you to serve on a special Taskforce comprised of major business and
community leaders to explore funding options for a potential professional-grade football facility.
Such a facility may be necessary to retain Arizona's NFL franchise, to be placed on a regular
rotation for future Super Bowls, and to keep the Fiesta Bowl as one of the premier collegiate bowl
games in the country, all of which have a major economic impact on our state.
As you know, a vote last May in the City of Mesa rejected a large development proposal that
included a new football stadium as well as a convention center. The purpose of the 'Plan B Task
Forcen will be to study various options in an attempt to arrive at an appropriate publidprivate
partnership that would not include elements other than the football stadium and related facilities.
I would note that many other states have faced stadium challenges similar to the one we are
confronting here.
I have concluded that it is in our state's best interest for leaders in both the public and private
sectors to give this matter serious thought. My only preconceived notion is that any public
financing will minimize the impact on the average Arizonan, particularly those that choose to not
support professional sports.
Knowing that your time is extremely valuable, considerable preparation for the work of the
Taskforce has already been accomplished. I anticipate having several meetings over the next
three months and concluding the work of the Taskforce before February of next year. Mike
Welborn of Bank One Arizona has graciously agreed to host the first meeting. It will be held on
Wednesday, November 10'. from 900 to 11:OO a.m. on the 36' floor of the BankOne Building.
I want to thank you personally for your willingness to consider this important assignment and look
forward to working with you in the weeks ahead.
Sincerely,
1- JANE DEE HULL
Governor
1700 WEST WASWINGTOPNH, OENIX, ARIZON8A5 007
(602) 542433 1 FAX (602) 542-7601 WWW.GOVERN0RSTATE.AzvS
Stadium Plan B Advisorv Task Force
Minutes of Meeting on November 22,1999 - 9:00 a.m.
. .
Attendance
Members Ex Officio Members
Mike Welborn
Bob Hunt
Richard Burke
Jim Grogan
Mike Bidwill
Bob Marshall
Karen Wittmer
Craig Berge
Bob Fannin
Arte Moreno
Bob Delgado
John Ogden
Dave Radcliffe
Dave Beckham
Eddie Basha
Joe Desplinter
Bill Post
Ron Bergarno
Frank Kush
Bob Lavinia
Greg Holmes
Steve Wheeler
Bill Peltier
Dick Silverman
D Denise Meridith
Mark McDerrnitt
Ted Fems
Mark Swenson
Technical Advisors
Chris Baier
Jay Smith
Steve Betts
Guests
Allan Price
Barry Smitheman
Ron Ober
Paul Jensen
C.A. Howlett
Absent
Don Carson
Drew Brown
Jerry Colangelo
George Evans
Bill Franke
Linda Brock Nelson
Barbara Ralston
Don Ulrich
Dave Brown
D
1. Introduction: Mike Welborn opened the meeting to the public and asked the
members of the Task Force and guests to introduce themselves.
2. Plan B Goals: Mike Welborn restated the three goals presented at the previous
D meeting, asked for discussion, and recognized a consensus on those goals.
3. Stadium Desinn & Costs: Bob Hunt of Huber, Hunt & Nichols gave a
presentation of open air and climate controlled stadium design options and costs
including renovation of Sun Devil Stadium. Bob Aylesworth of Huber, Hunt & Nichols
then gave an overview of a concept for a possible new multi-purpose stadium facility.
The Task Force discussed the various facility components and costs.
David Radcliffe suggested that a market feasibility study be done to determine the
potential uses of the facility and need for various components. Mr. Radcliffe consented
to coordinate the development of such a study.
4. Future Meetinas: Mike Welborn indicated that the next meeting will finalize a
discussion on stadium design and costs, then will provide an overview of funding
D options. Bob Marshall volunteered to prepare a draft mission statement for the next
meeting.
The next meeting will be held on December 2nd at 8:30 a.m. at Hensley & Co.,
4201 N. 45thA venue. The meeting on December 1 6w~ill~ be held at TOSCO Marketing
D
Co., 1500 N. Priest Drive in Tempe.
Stadium Plan B Advisow Task Force
Minutes of Meeting on December 2,1999 - 9:00 a.m.
Attendance
Members Chris Bowen
Mike Welborn
Bob Hunt
Jim Grogan
Mike Bidwill
Bob Marshall
Karen Wittrner
Craig Berge
Bob Fannin
Arte Moreno
Bob Delgado
John Ogden
Dave Radcliffe
Dave Beckham
Joe Desplinter
Bill Post
Frank Kush
Greg Holmes
Steve Wheeler
Bill Peltier
Don Carlson
George Evans
Jerry Colangelo
Linda Brock Nelson
Barbara Ralston
Dick Silverman
Ex Officio Members
Mark McDermitt
Ted Ferris
Mark Swenson
Technical Advisors
Chris Baier
Jay Smith
Steve Betts
Peter Hayes
Guests
Barry Smitherman
Ron Ober
Paul Jensen
C.A. Howlett
George Seitts
Dean Short
Kurt Freund
John Snider
Bill Rhoda
Brian McGough
Absent
Drew Brown
Bill Franke
Don Ulrich
Dave Brown
Eddie Basha
Ron Bergarno
Bob Lavinia
Denise Meridith
1. Introduction: Bob Delgado opened the meeting to the public and asked the
members of the Task Force and guests to introduce themselves. Mike Welborn gave an
overview of the discussion fiom the previous meeting.
2. Mission Statement: Bob Marshall presented a draft mission statement for the
Task Force and solicited comments fiom the members.
3. Construction Desim Follow-Uv: Bob Hunt provided follow-up information
regarding construction costs and cost savings of various facility components. Mike
Bidwill and Steve Wheeler noted the advantage to Super Bowls, Fiesta Bowls and the
Cardinals of a movable grass field and retractable roof.
4. Multipurpose Use Follow-Uv: Dave Radcliffe presented information regarding
special event uses of the proposed facility and responded to questions. Chris Baier
reported on the interest of Major League Soccer in expanding into the Phoenix market
and using the proposed facility. He also described the possible uses by national sporting
events such as World Cup Soccer and Final Four events. Members discussed the design
elements necessary for these special event uses.
5. Funding Overview: Bill Rhoda, Kurt Freund and Brian McGough presented an
overview of stadium funding considerations and potential sources. The members
discussed the pros andcons of several of the funding sources and requested additional
information at the next meeting regarding many of the options.
6. Next Meeting: The next meeting will be held on December 16" from 9:00 a.m. to
12:OO p.m. at Tosco Marketing Co. The meeting will include a follow-up discussion on
funding sources and presentations by local government officials on possible stadium
sites.
7. Minutes: The minutes of the meeting on November 22, 1999 previously
distributed were approved.
Stadium Plan B Advisorv Task Force
Minutes of Meeting on December 16,1999 - 9:00 a.m.
Attendance
Members
Technical Advisors
Bob Hunt
Jim Grogan
Mike Bidwill
Bob Marshall
Karen Wittmer
Craig Berge
Bob Fannin
Bob Delgado
Dave Radcliffe
Joe Desplinter
Frank Kush
Greg Holmes
Steve Wheeler
George Evans
Jerry Colangelo
Linda Brock Nelson
Barbara Ralston
Dick Silverman
Bob Lavinia
Denise Meridith
Richard Burke
Eddie Basha
Ron Bergamo
Ex Officio Members
Ted Ferris
Mark Swenson
Chris Baier
Jay Smith
Steve Betts
Peter Hayes
Guests
Kurt Freund
John Snider
Bill Rhoda
Rick Honow
John Junker
Brian Kearney
Bill Stephens
Councilman Cody Williams
Mayor Brown
Mayor Giuliano
Absent
Drew Brown
Bill Franke
Don Ulrich
Dave Brown
Mike Welborn
Arte Moreno
John Ogden
Dave Beckham
Bill Post
Bill Peltier
Don Carson
Mark McDermitt
1. Introduction: Bob Lavinia welcomed everyone, opened the meeting and received
approval of the minutes of the previous meeting. Ted Ferris gave a brief overview of the
previous activities of the Task Force.
2. Fundinn Options Follow-Up: Bill Rhoda, CSL International, presented
information regarding how the Phoenix Metro area compares against other metropolitan
areas regarding bed taxes and rental car rates. Jim Grogan described the meetings with
the Tourism Alliance and hotel/motel industry to attempt to create a partnership for
tourism promotion. Steve Betts described the discussions with the car rental industry
regarding a possible winlwin funding plan. Mr. Betts also distributed information and
described the process to establish an apportionment of income taxes on non-resident
athletes.
3. Fiesta Bowl: John Junker, Executive Director of the Fiesta Bowl, gave a
presentation that included the background of the game and status as a top tier bowl game;
competitive challenges from other new venues across the country; economic impacts of
the game and events; qyality of life benefits to the community; need for this new facility.
4. Possible Sites: On behalf of the Phoenix Downtown Partnership, Brian Kearney
presented a downtown Phoenix site adjacent to and southeast of the Bank One Ballpark,
and described the advantages of the proposed site. Councilman Cody Williams also
supported the site and responded to questions. In addition, Councilman Williams
presented a site south and west of downtown Phoenix between the 1-1 0 Freeway and the
Salt River.
Mayor Giuliano presented three sites within the City of Tempe: one in Papago
Center, one each at the southwest and southeast corners of the 202 and 101 Freeways.
Mayor Brown spoke of his support for keeping the Cardinals in Arizona and for the site
at the southeast comer of the two freeways.
Bill Stephens presented a possible site north and east of Van Buren and 7th
Streets.
Bob Marshall volunteered to prepare draft criteria to be considered by the Task
~ o kaet t he next meeting. The Task Force discussed the factors that should be considered
in the criteria.
5. Next meetin~s: A public open house will be held on the evening of January 6"
with the location to be determined. The following meeting will be hosted by Jim Grogan
on Friday, January 14" at 9:00 a.m. at the Chaparral Suites in Scottsdale.
Stadium Plan B Advisorv Task Force
Minutes of Meeting on January 14,2000 - 9:00 a.m.
Attendance
Members
Craig Berge
Mike Bidwill
Drew Brown
Richard Burke
Bob Delgado
Joe Desplinter
Bob Fannin
Jim Grogan
Gregg Holmes
Bob Hunt
Frank Kush
Bob Lavinia
Bob Marshall
Linda Brock Nelson
John Ogden
Bill Peltier
Dave Radcliffe
Barbara Ralston
Dick Silverman
Don Ulrich
Mike Welborn
Steve Wheeler
Karen Wittmer
Technical Advisors
Chris Baier
Steve Betts
Chris Bowen
Ted Ferris
Peter Hayes
Mark McDermott
J. Brian Smith
Guests
Bill Bidwill
Kurt Freund
Rick Horrow
Barry Smitherman
John Snider
Absent
Eddie Basha
Ron Bergamo
Dave Beckham
Dave Brown
Don Carson
Jerry Colangelo
George Evans
Bill Franke
Denise Meridit h
h e Moreno
Bill Post
1. Introduction: Mike Welborn welcomed everyone, opened the meeting and gave a
brief history of the previous Task Force deliberations.
2. Site Selection Criteria: Bob Marshall distributed the proposed criteria and
explained the process by which cities may propose sites. He emphasized that
these criteria are neutral and do not favor any one particular site.
Open House: Bob Marshall gave a presentation on the Open House and stressed
the need to create a dialogue between members of the Task Force and the
community. The Open House will be held on January 18, 2000, from 6:00 p.m. to
9:00 p.m. at the Pera Club. It will cover four topic areas. The four areas are the
stadium, financing, the Cardinals and Fiesta Bowl and host cities. He requested
that all members attend.
Tourism Industry: Jim Grogan reported that they have been meeting with
representatives fiom the tourism industry. According to the industry, there needs
to be an increased dedicated hnding source for tourism in order for the industry
to support the package.
Bed Tax and Car Tax Proposal: Ted Ferris explained the proposed tax increases.
In order to keep the industry competitive, a modest increase was proposed. The
proposal assumes an 8% growth rate.
Threat to Tourism: Mark McDermott explained how the dialogue has evolved
from a discussion on the stadium to a tourism business retention proposal.
According to Mark, the industry's growth has diminished and, in fact, Arizona is
losing market share. His industry appreciates the opportunity to address this in
the proposed finance plan.
Rental Car Tax: Steve Betts explained the proposed rental car tax. The additional
revenue would go to find the stadium and the Cactus League. This will allow the
Cactus League to pursue new teams and update existing facilities.
Cactus League: Chris Baier gave a presentation on the history of the Cactus
League. He pointed out the benefits of changing fiom a flat fee to a percentage.
The money generated fiom the tax increase will allow the Cactus League to
pursue new teams and update existing facilities.
Arizona Tourism Business Retention Proposal: Steve Betts handed out the
proposal and asked for feedback.
Capital Plan Goals Presentation: Mike Welborn explained the capital finance
plan. Under the Plan, 5 1.6% of the $329 million will be paid for by
privatelvenue-related sources. The remaining 49.3% will be paid for by the
increased bed and car rental taxes.
Cardinals Presentation: Bill and Mike Bidwill thanked the members for their
efforts. Mike explained the challenges of playing in Sun Devil Stadium. He
stressed the tremendous amount of national and international exposure brought to
Arizona by the Cardinals through NFL broadcasts. The members then viewed a
video detailing the economic impact the Cardinals have on the state.
12. Future Meetings: The next meeting will be the Open House held at the Pera Club
on Tuesday, ~ k u a1r8"~ fi om 6:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. The following meeting will
be held on Friday, January 2 1"' fiom 8:00 a.m. to 1 1 :00 a.m. at the Cardinals
facility at 8701 S. Hardy in Tempe.
Stadium Plan B Advisory Task Force
Minutes of Meeting on January 21,2000 - 8:00 a.m.
Attendance
Members
Craig Berge
Mike Bidwill
Richard Burke
Bob Delgado
Joe Desplinter
Bob Fannin
Jim Grogan
Frank Kush
Bob Lavinia
Bob Marshall
Denise Meridith
John Ogden
Bill Peltier
Dave Radcliffe
Barbara Ralston
Dick Silverman
Mike Welborn
Steve Wheeler
Karen Wittmer
Technical Advisors
Chris Baier
Steve Betts
Chris Bowen
Ted Ferris
Peter Hayes
Mark McDermott
Guests
Bob Aylesworth
Bill Bidwill
Rick Collins
Kurt Freund
Ron Ober
Farrell Quinlan
John Snider
Ted Wellmeyer
1. Introduction: Mike Bidwill welcomed the Task Force members. Mike Welborn
explained the meeting agenda. He stressed that he wants every member to be
comfortable with the final report submitted to the Governor. He noted that the
next Task Force meeting will be on January 3 1st at 4:00 p.m. at the State Capitol
with invitations going to the Governor and legislature.
2. Polling Results: Farrell Quinlan of the Arizona Chamber of Commerce presented
the results of a poll conducted by the Chamber. The results show that 56% of
those polled support using private donations and tourism oriented taxes to build a
new stadium.
3. Open House on January 18,2000: Bob Marshall gave a presentation on the Open
House. It was estimated that 250 people attended as well as 20 Task Force
members and the media. Sixty survey forms were submitted.
It was noted that the attitudes of the guests seemed to shift from whether there
will be a stadium to when, where and how. There was also a great deal of positive energy
regarding potential sites.
. .
Recurring issues included site location; ratio of public vs. private funding;
avoiding a public vote; and the Fiesta Bowl's future.
The Task Force recommended the following:
Factor survey feedback into report
Task Force members need to be available to public and press
. Establish web site to continue this communication process Consider future open house
Bob Marshall will meet with representatives of cities to discuss criteria for
proposed sites.
4. Capital Funding Plan: Steve Betts gave a brief presentation on the capital funding
plan and its goal with a description of the funding sources.
5. PublicIPrivate Split: Ted Ferris presented a graph detailing the finance plans
publiclprivate split. According to Ted, the graph addresses Governor Hull's
admonition to minimize impact on the average Arizonan. The graph shows that
22 out of $329 million is $.07 on the dollar.
6. Tourism Industry: Dave Radcliffe reported on negotiations with the tourism
industry. The industry raised a concern regarding the guarantee of the promotion
money. Ted Ferris explained that the promotion money would be formula driven
as opposed to general appropriations. This would take it out of annual budget
debate and ensure that the industry receives it.
7. Site Selection Process: Karen Wittmer inquired about the site selection process
and whether the cities have been contacted. She also asked who or what entity
would be responsible for negotiating the best deal with the cities.
8. Presentations: A video on Super Bowl XXX was shown. Joe Desplinter, from
Ernst & Young, gave a presentation on economic impact. Chris Baier made a
presentation on the NFL. Chris stated that 60% of the people who attend the
Super Bowl are corporate decision makers. They decide where conferences are
held and make decisions about expansions and relocations. According to Chris,
there was a 50% increase in leads calls to the Department of Commerce during
the first quarter of 1996.
9. Final Report: Steve Betts presented the draft final report and requested input
from the Task Force members. Members were asked to contact Steve or Ted
Ferris with changes or concerns regarding the final draft.
10. Legislative Strategy: Steve Betts gave a presentation on legislative strategy.
Mike Bidwill thanked members for attending the meeting and offered tours of the
Cardinals' facility.
Economic Impact
P Economic impact of Cardinals (annual) $1 5 0+ million .
> Economic impact of Super Bowl XXX (event) $3 05+ million
Economic impact of Fiesta Bowl (annual) $1 3 3+ million
> Economic impact of Cactus League (annual) $200+ million (a)
- Potential Dodgers' impact $30 million
P Construction cost of stadium $329 million
- Construction cost to Arizona residents $22 million
The construction of the stadium will create several
thousand tradesman jobs over a three year period, several
hundred ongoing jobs at the stadium and generate significant
sales and income taxes for State and Local governments.
(a) Excludes local residents, team and vendor expenditures.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
flhursday, May 13,1999
CONTACT: Shawn Schoeffler
608350-0909
ECONOMIC IMPACT REACHES A RECORD $133 MILLION FOR
TMlS YEAR'S NATlONAL CHAMPIONSHIP TOSTiPOS FIESTA BOWL
TEMPE, Aria;. - This year's Tostitos Fiesta Bowl, the first unified national championship game in college
football history, attracted 69,000 out-of-state visitors and generated an overall economic impact of $1 33 million,
according to a study by the Arizona State University College of Business.
Researchers from Arizona State University also determined that the Tostitos Fiesta Bowl, which featured
Tennessee and Florida State, and related events:
Fostered 2,540 jobs;
Generated $12 million in state and local taxes; and
Q Produced $44 million in income to Arizona households and businesses.
'We commend our volunteers for working so hard to bring this game to Arizona, which resulted in this
kind of economic windfall for the state," Fiesta Bowl President Win Holden said. "The Fiesta Bowl is proud to
annually contribute to the economic prosperity of the State of Arizona."
The $133 million far exceeds the previous Fiesta Bowl best, which was set in 1996 when the national
championship game between Nebraska and Florida generated an economic impact of $96.8 million. The Fiesta
Bowl has now contributed an economic impact of more than $705 million throughout the bowl's 28-year history.
This year marked the beginning of the Bowl Championship Series, which included the Fiesta, Sugar,
Orange and Rose bowls and guaranteed a true national championship game for the first time in college football
history. As the highest finisher in the bidding process, the Fiesta Bowl had the option to choose this year to host
the title game.
"For the first time ever, people knew there would be a true national championship game, and it would be
played in the Tostitos Fiesta Bowl," Holden said. "That's why the economic impact exceeded even the most
optimistic forecasts."
Economic impact projections made prior to the game had the impact at $120 million. The ASU study
found that actual spending in every major category exceeded the early estimates by substantial margins.
According to the study, the 69,000 out-of-state visitors actually spent $58 million for lodging, food,
entertainment, and many other goods and services during their stay. An additional $13 million was spent by the
Fiesta Bowl organization and others associated with the activities. The third element of the overall impact reflects
a multiplier effect of $62 million in economic activity induced by the spending of visitors and private organizations.
- more -
Page 2
The study shows that non-local fans spent an average of $202 per day or a total of $683 per person
during the entire stay. The largest expenditures were for lodging, meals and beverages, entertainment and
shopping. Other results of the study included:
e The average paQ size of Fans was 3.2 persons.
The average length of stay was 3.3 nights.
More than 80 percent stayed in a hotel, motel or resort.
a More than 66 percent arrived on commercial airline, 20 percent by charier flight and 13 percent by
private vehicle.
Past economic impact figures generated by the Fiesta Bowl:
bactual Economic impact
$1 33,000,000
$46,320,000
$29,360,000
$96,800,000
$30,501,000
$1 8,200,000
$26,070,000
$25,500,000
$1 3,215,000
$23,356,000
$45,050,000
$24,743,592
$39,040,000
$20,100,000
$1 7,000,000
$1 8,000,000
$1 6,000,000
$1 8,500,000
$1 4,000,000
$1 2,000,000
$5,000,000
$8,000,000
$5,500,000
$4,500,000
$6,750,000
$3,000,000
$3,000,000
$2,000,000
Out-of-State Visitors
69,000
43,000
25,000
50,000
30,000
17,000
28,000
28,000
16,000
31,000
46,000
32,000
39,000
25,000
21,000
22,000
16,000
23,000
20,000
22,000
10,000
18,000
16,000
10,000
15,000
9,000
9,000
8,000
Prepared by
The Center for Business Research
L. William Seidman Research Institute
College of Business Arizona State University
For the
Arizona Department of Commerce
Arizona Office of Tourism
and
Super Bowl XXX Host Committee
May 1996
Economic lmuact Analysis
Super Bowl lo(W
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Super Bowl XXX contributed the following economic benefits to the Arizona economy:
Overall Economic Impact
Visitor Expenditures: The event attracted 89,000 out-of-town visitors
who spent $81.6 million during their stays in the Phoenix area and
$4.2 million in other communities in Arizona. Local shares of tour
packages, airline ticket costs, and private plane expenses contributed
an additional $22.9 million. (Spending by local residents is not included.)
Organizational Expenditures: The NFL, the Super Bowl XXX Host
Committee, and others associated with Super Bowl XXX contributed
$53.5 million in direct expenditures in staging the Super Bowl XXX.
Induced Expenditures: $143.6 million in economic activity induced
by visitor and organization expenditures. Most of the induced impacts
occurred outside of the hospitality sector.
Other Impacts
Employment Effects (full-time equivalent jobs):
(The peak number of jobs may have been much larger than this
full-time equivalent figure.)
Direct Employment - Super Bowl XXX Host Committee
Induced Employment - Demand for labor equivalent to 6,009 jobs
attributable to the induced effects from organizational expenditures
to stage the event and from the consumer spending by out-of-town
visitors.
Income Effects: Earnings flowing to Arizona households.
State and Local Tax Revenues:
State and local sales tax revenues
Personal tax revenues resulting from the induced economic activity
Indirect business taxes resulting from the induced economic activity
$305.8 million
$108.7 million
$53.5 million
$143.6 million
Long-Term Impacts: 1
I
$102.1 million
$27.1 million
$10.4 million
$7.8 million
$8.9 million
The international media coverage associated with Super Bowl XXX
can be expected to stimulate tourism and business activity in Arizona.
Super Bowl XXX
Direct Economic Impacts
The largest source of direct economic impact associated with Super Bowl XXX was the
consumer spending by out-of-town fans who traveled to the metro Phoenix area because of the
event. To develop estimates of these expenditures, the ASU research team conducted two surveys:
one of fans attending Super Bowl XXX and another of fans who attended major Super Bowl-related
events held prior to the game itself. Only those who indicated that they were not local residents were
asked to participate in the survey. A total of 716 usable responses was collected from non-local
attendees and 566 responses were gathered from non-local fans at the Super Bowl week events.
The information compiled by the survey relating to fans' lengths of stay in the Phoenix area,
their spending patterns, and certain other information about their visits was combined with
estimates of the number of non-local fans to produce estimates of visitor expenditures. The number
of non-local fans was estimated on the basis of attendance figures provided by the NFL and esti-mates
of the proportion of non-local fans compiled as part of the survey process.
The other major source of direct spending injections into the local economy was expenditures
directly associated with Super Bowl XXX by the Super Bowl XXX Host Committee and other
organizations, including the NFL and the media. Because of their confidential nature, expenditures
made by other business fums that sponsored various events associated with Super Bowl XXX have
not been included in the analysis, even though they also generated demands for local goods and
services.
Relatively minor direct employment and income effects were associated with the operations of
the Super Bowl XXX Host Committee organization itself - the staff it employed and its payroll.
Information concerning the number of jobs and associated payroll was provided by the Host Com-mittee.
Most of the income and employment effects associated with an event like the Super Bowl are
the result of the increase in economic activity induced by the direct expenditures by fans and by the
organizations involved in staging the event.
Thousands of local residents also attended the more than 100 events and activities, such as the
NFL Experience and the NFL Player's Party, that were held as part of Arizona's Super Bowl XXX
celebration. These events provided unique entertainment opportunities to large numbers of Arizo-nans,
but Super Bowl-related spending by the local population has NOT been included as part of the
direct economic impacts associated with Super Bowl XXX. As state residents, their consumer expen-ditures
do not generate substantial incremental economic activity within Arizona.
Induced Economic Impacts
The direct expenditures by the fans and by the Super Bowl XXX Host Committee and other
organizations induced additional business activity. These induced impacts were felt first in those
sectors that supplied goods and services to Super Bowl XXX or to the visitors. But, in turn, these
suppliers purchased goods and services from other local businesses, and their employees spent most
super Em1 XXK
SURVEY RESULTS
According to the figures provided by the NFL, attendance at Super Bowl XXX totaled 76,300.
The following section profiles samples of the two groups of non-local fans who responded to the ASU
surveys: (1) more than 66,000 non-local fans who attended the game and (2) 23,000 other fans who
traveled to the Phoenix area because of Super Bowl XXX and attended either of the two major pre-
Super Bowl events, the NFL Experience or the NFL Players Party, but did not actually attend the
game itself.
Visitor Characteristics
C Fans attending Super Bowl XXX came from all over the world, but one-third of the fans who
attended the game were from Texas (20 percent) or Pennsylvania (13 percent). Of the fans from
other places, the largest numbers came from California (13 percent) and New York (7 percent). Only
about 3 percent of game attendees surveyed were from outside the United States - most of those
from Canada or Mexico.
Among the out-of-town fans who did not attend the game, the largest numbers came from other
Arizona communities (23 percent) and from California (21 percent). Only 3 percent came from
outside the United States.
State (continued)
Attended
Game
Tennessee ........................................................................... 1%
Texas .................................................................................. 20
Utah ............!.. ...~ ................................................................... -
Vermont ............................................................................. 0.3
Virginia .............................................................................. 2
Washington ........................................................................ 1
WestVuginia ..................................................................... 0.3
Wisconsin .......................................................................... 1
Wyoming ........................................................................... -
Number of respondents: ..................................................... 678
TABLE 2
COUNTRY OF RESIDENCE
Country
Attended
Game
Canada .................................................................................. 1 %
France ................................................................................... 0-2
Germany ............................................................................... -
Ireland ................................................................................. 0.2
Mexico ................................................................................. 1
Netherlands ...................................................................... 0.2 .
Venezuela ............................................................................. 0.4
United States ......................................................................... 97
Did Not
Attend Game
Did Not
Attend Game
2%
-
0.5
-
0.5
-
Number of respondents: ........................................................ 696 264
More than three-quarters of the non-local fans surveyed at the game and two-thirds at the Super
Bowl week events were male.
Among those who attended the game, 87 percent were white, 5 percent Hispanic, and small
numbers of the other racidethnic groups were represented. The out-of-town fans who did not attend
the game were more ethnically diverse. Three-quarters were white, 14 percent Hispanic, 6 percent
Native American, and smaller numbers of the other groups were represented.
Super Bawl X X I
Those attending Super Bowl XXX came from affluent households. The median household
income was over $100,000, and 18 percent reported household incomes of $250,000 or more.
Household incomes of fans not attending the game were lower, with 7 percent below $25,000.
However, the median household income was still reported to be about $58,000, and one in six
respondents reported a-figure of $100,000 or more.
TABLE 4
HOUSEHOLD INCOME
Income Category
Attended Did Not
Game Attend Game
Under $25,000 ......................................................................
$25,000 - 49,999 ..................................................................
$50,000 - 74,999 ..................................................................
$75,000 - 99,999 ..................................................................
$100,000 - 149,999 ..............................................................
$150,000 - 199,999 ..............................................................
$200,000 - 249,999 ..............................................................
$250,000 - 299,999 ..............................................................
$300,000 or more ..................................................................
Number of respondents: .......................................................6. 56
super BOWI X)OX 11
More than two-thirds of fans who attended the game stayed in a hotel, motel, or resort in the
Phoenix area, and another fdth indicated that they were staying in a private home. Among the
out-of-town fans not attending the game, only 16 percent stayed in a hotel, motel, or resort; more
than two-thirds stayed in a private home.
TABLE 7
ACCOMMODATIONS
Attended Did Not
Game Attend Game
Hotel, motel, or resort ........................................................... 70% 16%
Rented hornelapartment ........................................................ 5 6
Private home ...................................................................... 22 68
Other ..................................................................................... 3 10
Number of respondents: ........................................................ 596 223
Three-quarters of the visitors who attended the game said that they had traveled to the Phoenix area
on a commercial airline. Another 12 percent arrived by charter flight. Slightly less than one-half of
fans who did not attend the game traveled to the Phoenix area by commercial airline. Forty-four
percent traveled in their personal vehicles.
TABLE 8
PRIMARY MODE OF TRkYSPORTATION
Attended Did Not
Game Attend Game
Scheduled airline .................................................................. 75% 48%
Charter flight ........................................................................ 12 2
Private plane ......................................................................... 1 2
Personal vehicle ................................................................... 7 44
Rental vehicle ....................................................................... 4 2
Other ..................................................................................... 1 2
Number of respondents: ........................................................ 682
Suuer Bowl X X I 13
During their visits to the metro Phoenix area, game attendees spent an average of $306 per day
or a total of more than $1,000 during the entire stay. The largest expenditures were for lodging,
meals and beverages, entertainment, and shopping during their stays. Fans who did not attend the
game spent an average of $135 per day or a total of $633.
In addition, 24 percent of fans who attended the game paid for at least part of their trip as part of
a tour package. The average price per person was about $1,700. Very few of the fans who did not
attend the game participated in package tours.
TABLE 10
DAILY EXPENDITURES
(Per Person)
Attended Did Not
Game Attend Game
Lodging ...............................................................................$ 68 $17
Meals and beverages ........................................................... 48 27
Groceries ............................................................................. 8 7
Entertainmentlrecreation .................................................... 75 28
Local travel ........................................................................ 2 1 18
Shopping ............................................................................. 84 35
Other ................................................................................... 2 3
Total ................................................................................. $306 $135
Number of respondents: ...................................................... 568 205
ECONOMIC IMPACTS
Direct Impacts
Metro Phoenix
Based on reported attendance figures and information from the ASU surveys, an estimated
89,000 persons traveled to the Phoenix area because of Super Bowl XXX.
During their stays in the Phoenix area, these visitors and their travel parties spent an estimated
$8 1.6 million, including $16.7 million on lodging, $13.6 million for food and drink, $19.5 million in
entertainment-related expenditures, and $22.2 million on shopping.
TABLE 12
VISITOR EXPENDITURES
Category Total Expenditures
Lodging .................................................................... $16,650,000
Meals and beverages ................................................. 13,550,000
Groceries ................................................................... 2,620,000
Entertainmentlrecreation .......................................... 19,540,000
Local travel ............................................................... 6,450,000
Shopping ................................................................... 22,200,000
Other ......................................................................... 580,000
Total .......................................................................... $81,590,000
Ln addition to direct visitor expenditures, the local shares of tour packages, airline ticket costs,
and expenses for private planes conhibuted $22.9 million. Direct expenditures by the Super Bowl
XXX Host Committee, along with local spending by the NFL and others involved in putting on
super Bowl XXX, totaled an additional $53.5 million. Other direct impacts included the Super Bowl
XXX Host Committee's 3 1 jobs and $820,000 payroll.
Other Arizona Communities
While in Arizona, 14 percent of game attendees and 15 percent of the fans who did not attend
said that they also had overnight stays in other areas of the state. During these stays, the visitors
spent an additional $4.2 million in other communities.
Overall Economic Impacts
Combining direct impacts with all of the induced or multiplier effects, the total overall effects
of the organizational expenditures and the expenditures by non-local visitors will ultimately create
economic activity of $305.8 million, $102.1 million in earnings, and a total demand for labor equiva-lent
to 6,040 full-time jobs in the Arizona economy. Given the short-term nature of the event, the
peak number of jobs associated with Super Bowl XXX may have been much larger than this full-time
equivalent figure.
TABLE 14
STATEWIDE ECONOMIC IMPACTS
Expenditures Earnings Employment1
Direct Impacts
Visitor Expenditures $108,710,000 - -
Organizational Expenditures 5 3,480,000 $820,000 3 1
Induced Impacts 143,610,000 101,310,000 6,009
Total Overall Impacts $305,800,000 $102,130,000 6,040
1 Full-time equivalent jobs
While about one-half of the economic activity and two-thirds of the jobs created are in services,
other sectors of the local economy are also affected. The economic activity resulting from Super
Bowl XXX creates demand for the goods and services produced by local manufacturers, wholesale
distributors, financial service companies, retail establishments, and other sectors of the state's
economy and provides jobs for Arizonans working for those f m s .
Net Economic Impacts
The month of January is in the peak visitor season for the Phoenix area, and hotel occupancy
rates are normally at high levels even without the attraction of an event like Super Bowl XXX. An
estimated 89,000 Super Bowl fans traveled to the metro Phoenix area in January, and an estimated
50,000 of them stayed in hotels, motels, and resorts during their stays. Thus, many of these out-of-town
visitors who came because of Super Bowl XXX stayed in hotel rooms that otherwise may have
been filled by other customers.
At the same time, however, hotel revenues were up significantly compared to the same period in
1995, even though occupancy was approximately equivalent to year-earlier levels. On a similar note,
sales tax figures for January 1996 reported by the Arizona Department of Revenue were substantially
higher than previous-year revenues - restaurant and bar collections were up 14 percent and hotel/
motel collections were 20 percent higher.
It is very difficult to accurately measure the extent to which normal convention/tourism-related
economic activity may have been displaced by Super Bowl XXX. But it is possible to estimate incre-mental
expenditures associated with Super Bowl XXX as one way of evaluating the net economic
impact of the event. The major components of incremental spending within the economic impact
model used for this study include the following:
(1) The additional amount of expenditures resulting from Super Bowl fans spending more than
hotel guests that they may have displaced;
(2) The amount spent by fans not staying in hotels;
(3) The spending in other parts of the state by Super Bowl fans;
(4) The amount spent by the Super Bowl Host Committee and non-local organizations to stage
Super Bowl XXX (adjusted for lodging expenditures).
Even making the extreme assumption that each Super Bowl fan who stayed in a hotel displaced
another guest, the incremental visitor spending by the 89,000 out-of-town fans is estimated to have
been $60.3 million, and the incremental spending by the Super Bowl XXX Host Committee and oth-ers
to put on Super Bowl XXX is estimated to have been $48.9 million (with adjustments to hotel
expenditures). Counting both these incremental expenditures plus the induced effects that would
have resulted from these direct expenditures, the total net impacts of Super Bowl XXX are estimated
to be at least $205.9 million in economic activity, $69.2 million in additional income to Arizona
households, and labor demand equivalent to 4,000 full-time equivalent jobs for the Arizona
economy.
To assess another aspect of the long-term economic impacts of visits to Super Bowl XXX,
visitors were also asked if they were an owner or key decision maker in a business fm. If so, they
were then questioned about their impressions of the Phoenix area as a place to hold future business
meetings. Among those who attended the game, 50 percent said that they would seriously consider
holding future business meetings in the Phoenix area. Fewer of those fans who did not attend the
game actually identified themselves as owner/decision makers, and slightly less than one-half
indicated that they would consider Phoenix as a site for future meetings. The survey also
inquired about their impression of the Phoenix area as a place to expand~locateb usiness operations.
About 20 percent of owner/decision makers who attended the game said that they would seriously
consider expansion or relocation to the Phoenix area based on the experience of their trip to Super
Bowl XXX. Those owner/decision makers who came to Phoenix but did not attend the game were
more positive, with 29 percent indicating that they would seriously consider the Phoenix area as a
business site.
TABLE 17
IMPACT OF ATTENDANCE ON BUSINESS DECISIONS
Attended Game
Yes
Ownerkey decision maker in a business fm 54%
Consider holding a meeting in the Phoenix area 50
Consider expanding your company's present operations
in the Phoenix area 15
Consider establishing business operations
in the Phoenix area
Did Not Attend Game
Yes
Ownerkey decision maker in a business firm 33%
Consider holding a meeting in the Phoenix area 47
Consider expanding your company's present operations
in the Phoenix area 20
Consider establishing business operations
in the Phoenix area
Total
No NIA Respondents
46% 684
Total
No NIA Respondents
67% 259
Governor's Stadium Plan "B" Advisory Task Force
Mission Statement
To provide Arizona with additional opportunities for improved quality of life and economic
development by building a first class multi-purpose stadium facility to:
Retain the state's NFL franchise
Capture a place in the Super Bowl rotation every four to five years
Maintain the Fiesta Bowl's premier ranking
Attract additional events and activities:
Sports and entertainment events such as soccer and concerts, etc.
Trade shows
Tourism
Provide the community with a comfortable venue for major public gatherings.
This will improve the quality of life for the citizens of Arizona by stimulating commercial
enterprise development, job opportunities, additional tax revenues, and enhanced civic prestige
and pride.
It is imperative that any public financing minimize the impact on Arizona residents while
improving their quality of life and opportunities for economic development.
CACTUS LEAGLT
LOCATIONS AND LEASE EXPIIUTIONS
Lease
Team Host Citv Stadium Expiration date
1. Oakland A's Phoenix Phoenix Municipal 2004
2. Anaheim Angels Tempe Tempe Diablo 2007
3. San Francisco Giants Scottsdale Scottsdale Stadium 2008
4. Colorado Roclues Tucson Hi-Corbett 201 1
5. Chicago Cubs Mesa Dwight Patterson 201 1,2016
6. Milwaukee Brewers Phoenix Maryvale Ballpark 2012
7. Anzona Diamondbacks Tucson Tucson Electric Park 20 13
8. Chicago Whitesox Tucson Tucson Electric Park 2013
9. Seattle Mariners Peoria Peoria Sports Complex 2014
10. San Diego Padres Peoria Peona Sports Complex 2014
EVENTS [OR PROPOSED NFL STADlUM 1
POTENTIAL NON-NFL EVENTS
Bared on our review of events held in other domed stadiums in the United States arid
the National Association of Consumer Show's event list, we have categorized the cvcnts
that could polentially be held in the proposed Arizona domed stadium. The fullowing
list dues not include convention or trade show related evenu that could be held in a
stadium adjoining a cr~nvelitionc enter.
-3 Sporling Events
> NCAA Football
Division I1 Playoffs
Fiesta Bowl
> NCAA Basketball Toumam~nts
b Pac-10 Basketball Playoffs
> Iiigh School Football Playoffs
t: High School Track & Field Meets
> Soccer
*:* Entertainment
> Concerts
b Award Ceremonies
2. Professional Wrestling
9 Motor Sports
b Monster Truck R3llicls
8 > Tractor Pulls - > Supercross
*:* Political Events
k National Conventions
> State Conventions
a:* Religious [vents
8 L Religious Rallies
*:* Consurner Shows
Agricultural Farm
P Antiques
> Auto Shows
k Boatinghtarine Shows
B k Bridal Shows
P Business Shows
> Collec~iblesS hows
> Computer Shows
P Craft/Hobby Shows-
B
k EthnidCultural Shows
b City & State Fairs
k Food & Beverage Shows
% Gdrden Shows
EVENTS FOR PROPOSED NFL STADlUM 2
NON-NFL EVENT ANAL YSlS
In order to estimate the number of potential non-NFL annual events thal could be held
in new domed stddium, we contxted officials of eight domed stadiums and obtained
detailed event information for c)ie part three years from four. We are continuing to
solicit the additional information from the others and will present at a future rr~celing.
The stadiums used as a basis for comparison were:
*:* The Alan~odome, located in San Antonio, Texas
*:- The Kingdome, located in Seattle, Washington
-3 The Metrodome, located in Minneapolis, MN
*:- The RCA Dome, located in Indianapolis, Indiana
D
It should be noted that two of these facilities are associated with convention centers.
The ~lamodorneis less than a milc from the San Antonio Convention Center and thc
RCA Dome is attached to the Indiana Convention Center. In evaluating thee two
facilities for comparisor~ purposes, we excluded convention-related events from the
following hble.
Bascd on the above comparison, it is reasonable to assume 12 to 15 non-NFL everlls
and consumer stlows averaging 25 to 50 days and 250,000 to 500,000 in attendance,
would use the proposcd domes stadium each year. If the Lcility were located adjacent
to a c:onvet.rtion center (within walking distance), an additional two or three events a
m year could use the facility.
7. , . :... "!;::..-. .....,,,.!:!.:R. ":;.' . ..- <:::.{;.ss..:.<.,;. :.;7.,..;....' . .:.rr::--. . . . . . . . . . . . ................ ... . . . . . , . . >,,.:,..:- ;, '1::'' .-.-..: :.... .. .. .. . " .,,.,;,:,, ;.:.::.: ::,;, .......... . . . . . . , , .,{..%: .' , , ............... . , .! -...... ..+..';.,- .- &% :.,
, .. 'Y...7,. . , ; :a,:,. "., , , , "":'..:(: ' - - . . P ' .:. .,. ,.* , ..,. . . . .. . . . . . . . . ,.
-i. ...". :.;. ;...L.. , , .. . ... .. :P .L ,. 4 "' . r~:.:l.: l...i.; <', ;,~...' ~ ' , c @ ~ R * ~ ~ ~ m ~ ~ ~ , ~ D o ~ B t ' 3 ~ ... .....k? . ) .: ;.. .
.. . . . . . ... ... ; .. ;. ......... . 7. ;.: . ..: :... .:.::*.:'(. . -. - . . . . " ........:. .:. ..... . . . . . . _ . . . . . . . ." . . . . . . . - . . . . . - ..... , . ,.. . . . . . .... . :-: .... .". .:.. ..:::::: ." . . " .. . . .. :: .... : ;,:<,:..('< 9-.,,:.: . . . . . - . . . . . .
: .-.
. .:."- . (. . . .,,,: );- :>, . . . .:;:'..::::.. .... . . . . . . . .... ..:. .? ,. ,,.. , .. -.- .. ..:. . . . .......,...........,. ........ ..... ,...*,. ", . . . . . . . ....." ....:..,......:.;...:..I...:..:.:.:.:..:. . :. .. .:;: .
Facility
Alarnodome
1997 12 23 598,000
1998 11 2 6 320,000
1399MD) 10 16 188,000
Kingdomc! -
1997 14 5 1 681,576
1998 16 5 2 637,483
Metrodome
1997 - 209 522,000
1998 - 222 457,000
1 999 - 220 400,000
RCA Dorrre
1997 27 - 678,000
1998 2 1 - 553,000
1999 23 - 800,000
Event Days Attendance
EVENTS FOR PROPOSED NFL STADIUM 3
CRITICAL FACTORS EFFECTING MARKETABI LlTY
f Location
a:* Proximity of First Class Hotel Rooms and Meeting Spxc
*3 Parking
*:* Proximity of Food, Beverage, Entertainment
*3 Proximity of Specialty Retail
*:* Transportation Infnstruc$ure
-3 TransidLight Rail + Interstate Highway System
-3 Air
-3 Booking PoliciedFacility Rental
Governor's Stadium Task Force
er 16,1999
B
x. 1.5 square miles
D
B. urban environnaaent
cs%ce/aaaixed arsc
b
D
ICEPI CAES PROJECTS
I
@ 2.2 acre urban park
rn e 3,465 space tfndergraund
pitrkiUlg garage
D
D
@ Performing arts facility
@ 827 seat main theater
@ Flexible stage tlneater with
150-379 seats
@ $20 milliog~ project
Monroe. 2nd to 3rd Street
Papago freesvay, 3rd Sfreei to 3rd Avenue
D
t
5 Historic 1929 theatre
5 8,400 seats
@ $14 million renovt~tioap
I)
Adams, 2nd to 3rd Avenue
I
I,
ckson to Lincoln, 7th Avenue to 7th Street
I,
I
@ 6 level, 550,000 s.f. Facility
@ Public Assembly Atrium
I)
Washington to Jefierson, 4th to 6th Avenues
Opens Wiotea- 1999
e Camdell Property Trust
ca 332 unit Itaxury apartment
a 3 story B~railding, structured
e Fitness facility, business cea~ter
;tnd community c%ublaoose
Van Buren & 7th Street
8
8
larriott Hotel
rn
Jefferson, 1st to 3rd Streets
rn
acriWc Railroad-
active destiaation
eases viabiliQ far
for fans
other events
prnent of America West Arena and Bank
PROPOS
DUNLAP AVE
NORTHERN AVE
GLENDALE AVE
BETHANY HOME RD
CAMELBACK RD
INDIAN SCHOOL RD
THOMAS RD
MC DOWELL RD
VAN BUREN ST
BUCKEYE RD
BROADWAY RD
SOUTHERN AVE
BASELINE RD
DOBBINS RD
ELLIOT RD
WARNER RD
RAY RD
CHANDLER BLVD
PECOS RD
CIRCLE MOUNTAIN RD
DESERT HILLS DR
JOY RANCH RD
CLOUD RD
CAREFREE HWY
LONE MOUNTAIN RD
DlXlLETA DR
DYNAMITE BLVD
JOMAX RD
HAPPY VALLEY RD
PINNACLE PEAK RD
DEER VALLEY DR
MAY0 BLVD
BELL RD
GREENWAY RD
THUNDERBIRD RD
CACTUS RD
SHEA BLVD
December 16, 1999
B Ned G. Giuliano
'.'?,J
Lmnard W Copple -. - __"
Michael Welborn, Chair
Governor's Stadium Plan "B" Advisory Task Force
Bank One Arizona NA
201 N. Central Avenue
Phoenix. Arizona 85001
Dear Mike:
I am pleased to respond to the request from the Governor's Stadium Plan
"B" Advisory Task Force regarding the identification of potential sites for a
proposed stadium for the Arizona Cardinals.
The City of Tempe has identified three sites within its municipal
boundaries, as well as a fourth site that is partially located in both the City
of Tempe and the City of Mesa (see attached). The City of Tempe does
not own any of these sites, however, property owners of and within each
of these sites have indicated a willingness to enter into discussions with
the Task Force about locating the stadium on their property. Additionally,
the City of Tempe is willing to participate in discussions with the
landowners and the Task Force.
I look forward to a meaningful discussion with the Task Force regarding
these four proposed stadium sites and the criteria by which the Task
Force will be evaluating their potential to be selected. Thank you for your
time and consideration.
In Service, w Neil G. Giuliano
Mayor
cc: Governor's Stadium Plan "B" Advisory Task Force Members
Attachments
Site 1 -Tempe
Size: 63 Acres
Parcels: I
Ownership: Papago Park Center / SRP
Site 2 - Tempe
Size: 146 Acres
Parcels: 77
Ownership: Multiple
Hohokam
Site 3 - Tempe
Size: 62 Acres
Parcels: 19
Ownership: Multiple I Arizona Board of Regents
Site 3a - Tempe I Mesa
Size: I70 Acres
Parcels: 1
Ownership: City of Mesa, Arizona Board of Regents,
Maricopa County
Stadium Location Options
NORTH w
GOVEKi0R7S STADni'M TASK FORCE
CF3TERIA FOR SITE SELECTION
January 18,2000
The purpose of this document is to suggest the criteria to be used in the
selection of the site for the proposed new NFL Stadium. The attributes
listed were compiled in an attempt to initiate the process and should not be
interpreted as being all-inclusive andor exclusive. No ranking andor
preference is implied by the order of the list.
The objective is to develop a Multi-Purpose Stadium Facility suitable for
football, soccer, musical concerts, trade shows, and other events in order
to meet the approval of the primary stakeholders such as the Governor, the
State Legislature, the Fiesta Bowl Committee, the NIX Super Bowl
Committee, the Arizona Cardinals organization, citizens of Arizona, the
tourism industry, and others.
The proposed attributes supporting the site selection criteria are:
Ability to Support Existing Ancillary Businesses and to Serve as
Catalyst for Further Development
The proposed site should maximize the incremental economic benefit
for the State and local communities. This will occur by supporting
existing Arizona businesses andlor spurring new investment such as:
+ Convention facilities
+Hotels
+ Parking facilities
+Restaurants
+ Entertainment venues
+Retail establishments
park in^ Requirements
The proposed site should meet the parking requirements of the facility
and its users regarding a variety of factors such as:
+Minimum nurnber of parlung spaces equal to *25% of stadium
capacity, wihn proximity of the facility
+ Cost of structures
+Cost of additional land for surface parlung
+Event day control
+ Event day revenue
*Exact number to be determined
Access
The proposed site should meet vehicular access (private and public)
froG allareas of the Valley within a given time frame using ireeways,
arterial streets and collector sleets. Such access should accommodate
all proximate venues. Also, the site should meet pedestrian traffic
accessibility requirements from nearby parking lots and parking
structures (if applicable).
Environmental Considerations
The proposed site should be environmentally sound and meet
applicable FAA regulations for flight paths and noise levels.
Speed to Delivery
The proposed site should accommodate the shortest acquisition and
development time line possible, examples: single site ownership
versus multiple ownership and environmental remediation of the land.
Image and Visibilitv
The proposed site should meet the expectations of the Anzona
Tourism Alliance, convention and visitor's bureaus, and chambers of
commerce as a Valley "icon" to be shown on worldwide TV from
aerial (blimp) and ground views.
The "Riht Deal" Structure
The proposed site should meet the right site acquisition structure
considering appropriate terms, conditions and methods of control. The
host community will fund costs "outside the dnpline" such as:
+Site acquisition costs
+Site development costs compared on a "ready to build" basis
including: utilities, soil engineering, grading and drainage, zoning,
use approvals, etc.
+Parking requirements
Suitability of Land Parcel
Site should contain sufficient acreage, and be configured such that the
field can retract with some minimal outside seating, and so that
additional parking can be made available, if necessary.
Other: (Please add one or more attributes if you deem necessary)
Existing & Planned Stadium finding hformalion
Summary Table
New Seattle Seahawks Stadium
Ford Stadium
New Broncos Stadium
New Steelers Stadium
Paul Brown Stadium
Cleveland Stadium
Nashville Stadium
PSINet Stadium
Raymond James Stadium
Jack Kent Cooke Stadium
Alltel Stadium
TWA Dome
Ericsson Stadium
Proposed Stadium Fundng Information
New Houston Stadium
New Hartford Stadium
New San Francisco Stadium
I . .
,-
SUMMAORFY N FL STADIUFMU NDING
hRfegc d~eantl~bu imltu ms 'm4.2 692% 3(XfR! $1820 -2 [
b-e of Planned ltadiume $3167 73.796 283Dh -5 f%=2 1
PAGE 1
Team, City, State: Seattle Seahawks (PEL), Seattle, Washington
General Description: The $400 million footbaIVsoccer stadium and exhibition center is scheduled to open in 2002. The facility
will be owned by the Public Stadium Authority (PSA) and operated by the Seahawks.
Public Participation: Revenue generated from new, sports related lottery games will generate $127.9 million to the project.
King County will fund $101.4 million with revenues collected from a sales tax attributable to events in the
Stadium / Exhibition Center. Approximately $56.0 million in revenue will be collected from facility
admissions and parking taxes to assist in the funding. Additional funding includes $15.0 million in
proceeds collected from King County's hotel-motel tax.
Private Participation: Paul G. Allen (owner of the Seahawks franchise) will contribute $100.0 million to the project (including
$50.0 million in upfront cash).
King County Hotel/lMotel
Tax Revenue
PSLs and Owner
Equity ~ontribution\ , $15.0 million
$100.0 million
Parking Tax Revenue
Total Development Costs:
$400.3 million *
Public Participdion:
75% i
Private Participation:
25%
New State Lotte
(*) Represents total complex consisting of an exhibition center and stadium. Stadium construction cost is estimated
at approximately $305 million.
Sales Tax Revenue
$101.4 million
Ticket Taxes: Applicable ticket taxes will include a 10.0% admissions tax.
Property Taxes: Property taxes are not applicable since the facility will be publicly owned.
General Lease Terms: A master lease agreement is currently being negotiated between the PSA and the Seahawks. Based on
conversations with the team, the Seahawks will operate the facility with annual rental payments to the
PSA anticipated to approximate $850,000 for the first year of operations (with subsequent years' rent
indexed to the CPI). It is also expected that the public sector will be provided with 20 percent of net
revenues generated through the operations of the exhibition center. All other stadium revenues are
expected to be retained by the team and all fixed and game day stadium operating expenses will be the
responsibility of the Seahawks.
Other Development / The Seahawks will be responsible for all cost overruns related to the stadium and exhibition hall.
Lease Issues:
PAGE 3
Team, City, State: Detroit Lions (NFL), Detroit, Michigan
General Description: The Lions plan to move into the new 70,000-seat, multipurpose Ford Stadium in the year 2002. The new stadium,
also to be accompanied by a new practice facility, is being built in conjunction with a new MLLB stadium for the
Detroit Tigers. The facility owner will be the DetroitlWayne County Stadium Authority and the operator of the
facility will be the Detroit Lions.
Public Participation: The Downtown Development Authority (DDA) contributed $70.0 million to the project, of which $40.0 million
comprised the County purchase of Tigers facility rights and $30.0 million in interest installment payments made by
the DDA. The County funded $20.0 million toward the project with proceeds from the sale of certain held
properties, Another $20.0 million from the Authority for parking rights (which were in turn purchased by the
Tigers) was used to fund the project.
Private Participation: The Lions have committed to contribute $70.0 million for the stadium. A corporate contribution of $50.0 million,
of which approximately $40.0 million will be generated through the sale of facility naming rights and the remaining
$10.0 million from sponsorship revenue comprise the balance of the private funding.
Detroit Lions
Detroit Development Agency
$230.0 milhn
Public Partkipdon:
$10.0 million
Pn'vate Parlicipation:
Naming Rights
$40.0 million
PAGE 4
NEW BRONCOSS TADIU(M2002)
------<------,-- ,-,-,-,-,-----
Team, City, State: Denver Broncos (MFL), Denver, Colorado
General Description: The Broncos plan to move into the new 76,100-seat open-air stadium in the year 2001. In November 1998, the
Denver Metro taxpayers voted 57% in favor of the stadium proposal which extended the sales tax used for Coors
Field. The facility will be owned by the Metropolitan Football Stadium District and operated by the Denver
Broncos.
Public Participation: The Metropolitan Football Stadium District (District) will contribute approximately $270 million. Specifically, the
District will issue $245 million in sales tax revenue bonds in addition to contributing $15 million in naming rights
revenue and $10 million in interest earnings.
Private Participation: The Broncos have committed to fund 25 percent of total project budget, up to $90 million. In addition, as noted above,
the Broncos have provided the District with the rights to naming rights revenue which will also be used to fund approximately
$15 million.
Naming Rights Interest Earnings
$15.0 million $10.0 million
Stadium District
Sales Tax Revenue Bonds
$245.0 million
Public Participation:
Private PaHkipah'on:
N EW B RO NCO STAD I U M - OTHER FINANCIAILS SUES
-m-p,-m- " ---- -I Ippp--- ----
Ticket Taxes: Currently, no taxes will be applicable to tickets at the new stadium.
Property taxes are not applicable since the facility will be publicly owned.
General Lease Terms: The Team will operate the new stadium and will retain all revenues, while being responsible for all
operating expenses. The team will pay an annual base rent of $1.0 million per year for each of the first
11 years. The team will also pay the Stadium District 20 percent of gross parking revenue for the first
11 years, 100 percent of naming rights revenue, and 20 percent of non-football event revenue. The
team is also responsible for the payment of $2.7 million per annum through 2008 in order to retire the
City's bond obligation at Mile High Stadium.
Other Development / Stadium cost overruns will be funded by the Broncos.
Lease Issues:
PAGE 7
Team, City, State: Pittsburgh S teelers ), Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
General Description: The planned football-only stadium is anticipated to include approximately 65,000 seats, The facility
will be owned by the City of Pittsburgh and operated by the Steelers.
Public Participation: In addition to funds for a new MLB ballpark and an expanded convention center, the public sector will
contribute $173.5 million to the development costs of the new Steelers stadium. Specifically, $85.4
million of Regional Asset District tax revenue bonds will be issued that will be repaid primarily through
Regional Asset tax revenue and hotelhotel tax revenue. Additional public funds include $83.3 million
in state capital fknds and $4.8 million in state and federal infraswcture funds.
Private Participation: The Steelers will contribute $76.5 million to the financing from various sources. Specifically, the
contribution will consist of $20.0 miIIion through club seat lease revenue, $38.0 million through
personal seat license sales, $14.0 million in ticket surcharge revenue, and $4.5 million in upfront rent
payments.
State &Federal
Total Devebpment Costs:
$250.0 million
..
Public Partickation:
69%
Psivate Partieipat;ion:
31%
Infrastructure Funding
State Capital
Regional Asset District
Tax Revenue Bonds
$83.3 million \
Pittsburgh Steelers
$76.5 million
N EW STEELERS STADIU M - OTHER FINANCIAILSS UES
--- _ _ _ - - - - - --------------
There is currently a 5.0% amusement tax that would be applicable in addition to a 5.0% ticket
Property taxes are not applicable since the facility will be publicly owned.
General Lease Terms: Specific lease terms are undetermined at this time. However, it is expected that the Steelers will operate
the facility and retain all revenues generated theregom, with the exception of a fixed annual rental
payment to the District of $250,000. It is anticipated that the Steelers will be responsible for all fixed
and game day operating expenses. Further, the Steelers will receive development rights to the property.
Stadium cost overruns will be Eunded by the Steelers.
Other Development /
Lease Issues:
PAULB ROWNS TADIU(M2000)
,---------- -- ---,.--..----*----.- --------..,--
Team, City, State: Cincinnati Bengals (NFL), Cincinnati, Ohio
General Description: The new 70,000-seat, football-only Paul Brown Stadium is scheduled for completion in the year 2000,
The facility will be owned and operated by Hamilton County.
Public Participation: In March 1996, Hamilton County voters approved a half-cent sales tax which will raise more than $1
billion over 20 years for a Cincinnati sports complex. Approximately $335.3 million of the $1 billion will
help fund the cost of the NFL stadium component. Another $13.5 million in interest income will be
contributed to the project. The State of Ohio contributed $30.0 million for project costs.
Private Participation: It is anticipated that approximately $25.0 million was raised from Charter Seat Licenses.
State of Ohio Contribution
$30.0 million
Charter Seat Licenses
.I",-,.- ..,I- "-- $25.0 million
Public Participation:
$13.5 million
Private Participation:
Hamilton County
\-Bo-nd Issuanc-e
(sales tax increase)
$335.3 million
* Includes funding for the development of the stadium, training facilities, and parking facilities, among other items.
PAGE 1 0
NEW CLEVELANSDT ADIUM- OTHERFINANCIALISSUES
Ticket Taxes: Applicable ticket taxes include an 8.0% City admissions tax (raised from 6.0% to assist in facility
funding).
Property Taxes: Property taxes are not applicable since the facility is publicly owned.
General Lease Terns: The team will enter into a 30-year lease with the City that will provide the hanchise full operating
control of the new stadium. As such, the team will receive all stadium revenues (with the exception of
$200,000 in annual payments for the rights to City-controlled parking spaces) and will be responsible
for all fixed and game day operating costs.
Other Development / The project has already experienced approximately $33.0 million in cost ovenuns, of which $15.0
Lease Issues: million was paid by the NFL (which will be repaid by the expansion NFL franchise) and the remainder
is the joint responsibility of the City and the new Browns ownership group.
Team, City, State: Tennessee Oilers (NFL), Nashville, Tennessee
Genera2 Description: Beginning in 1999, the Oilers will play at a new 65,000-seat open-air stadium on a 33-acre complex in the
East Bank area of Nashville. The facility will contain 137 private suites and 11,700 club seats. The
facility will be owned by the Sports Authority of the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson
County and operated by the Oilers.
Public Participation: The City of Nashville will contribute $132.9 million in revenue derived from sales tax, bed tax and other
taxes. The State will provide $74.0 million of the financing, with the majority coming from $55.0 million
in bonds that will be repaid through sales taxes generated at the facility.
Private Participation: It is estimated that the sale of personal seat licenses (PSLs) will generate $71.0 million to assist in the
funding. The remaining $13.8 million will be funds allocated by the Authority from lease payments.
City of Nashville Allocation of
Sales Tax, Bed Tax, Lease Payments
and Other Tax Revenues $13.8 million
$132.9 milli
State of Tennessee
General Obligation and
-- Revenue Bonds
Total Development Costs: $74.0 million
$291.7 million , .
Public Participation:
Private Participatiort:
PAGE 1.4-
PSL revenues
$7 1.0 million
Ticket Taxes: Applicable ticket taxes include an 8.25% sales tax.
Property Taxes: Property taxes will not be applicable since the facility will be owned publicly-owned.
General Lease Terns: The Oilers wilI operate the new stadium and retain all revenues generated therefrom and pay all fixed
and game day operating expenses. The team will pay flat rent to the Authority but receives an operating
subsidy from the Authority with the net annual rent payment to the Authority approximating $362,000
per annum.
Other Development / Any stadium development cost overruns will be funded by the Authority.
Lease Issues:
PAGE 15
Ticket Taxes: Applicable ticket taxes include a 10.0% State of Maryland amusement tax.
Property Taxes: Property taxes are not applicable since the facility is publicly owned.
General Lease Terms: The Baltimore Ravens (formerly the Cleveland Browns) entered into a 30-year lease with the Maryland
Stadium Authority. The Authority operates the facility, while the Ravens have rights to all revenues
generated therefrom (with the exception of a 10% admissions tax paid to the State of Maryland). In
addition, the State of Maryland is afforded the use of two advertising panels in the stadium for their
own purposes (primarily for State Lottery advertising). The Ravens reimburse the Authority for all
fixed and game day operating expenses.
Other Development / Except for specific furnishing and equipment items, the Maryland Stadium Authority is responsible for
Lease Issues: all stadium cost overruns.
Team, City, State: Tampa Bay Buccaneers (NEL), Tampa Bay, Florida
General Description: The Buccaneers began play in the new 65,000-seat football-only stadium in 1998. The stadium is owned
and operated by the Tampa Sports Authority.
Public Participation: Three tax-exempt revenue bond issues were used to finance the stadium debt. Hillsborough County
issued $149.0 million in sales tax revenue bonds to help fund infrastructure costs. These bonds are
supported by a voter-approved half-cent increase in the sales tax. Tax-exempt sales tax revenue bonds
were issued in the amount of $30.0 million and are supported by an annual $2.0 million sales tax rebate
from the State of Florida. Tax-exempt tourist revenue bonds were issued for $ 11.2 million and is
supported by a new dedicated resort tax (bed tax). Investment income funded approximately $2.9 million
of total project costs.
Private Participation: None.
Hillsborough County
Sales Tax Revenue Bond r
$149.9 million
Total Development Costs:
$194.0 million
Pgblic Participation:
Private Participation:
0%
Investment Income / $2.9 million
Hillsborough County
Tourist Revenue Bond
State of Florida
Sales Tax Revenue Bond
$30.0 million
* Includes funding for the development of the stadium, training facilities, and parking facilities, among other items.
RAYMOND JAMES STADIUM -OTHERFINANCIAL~SSUES
Applicable ticket taxes include a 6.75% State sales tax and a TSA surcharge of 8.0% or $2.50 per
ticket, whichever is less.
Property taxes are not be applicable since the facility will be owned publicly-owned.
General Lease Terms: The team receives all stadium revenues with the exception of $3.5 million per annum in fixed rent
payments to the Authority. The Authority in turn is responsible for all fixed and game day expenses. In
addition, the team receives development rights to the property and receives the first $2.0 million in
revenue from other stadium events per annum.
Other Development / Cost overruns were the responsibility of the Authority. However, the team is paying for an expansion
Lease Issues: of the private suites to be included in the stadium.
PAGE 19
JACKK ENTC OOKES TADIU(Mlee71
,- l l _ l lA- ------ --lllIX ^ ---
Team, City, State: Washington Redskins (NFL), Washington D.C.
General Description: The Redskins moved into a new $250.5 million, 80,116-seat facility in 1997. The stadium is privately
owned and operated by the Redskins. The team recently renovated the stadium prior to the 1998 season to
upgrade certain areas of the facility with a specific focus on the premium seating areas.
Public Participation: The State of Maryland contributed $70.5 million to improve local infrastructure.
Private Participation: Construction costs of $1 80.0 million were privately financed by team ownership.
State of Maryland
Infrastructure
9370.5 million
PubliC Partieipa fion:
Private Participation:
Redskins Private Funds
$180.0 million
PAGE 20
Team, City, State:
, --_-------,-- - ------ -- -,----,- -+- -,---_II_<-,-CXI--------
Jacksonville Jaguars (NFlL), Jacksonville, Florida
General Description: The recently renovated Alltel Stadium has a seating capacity of approximately 73,000. The facility is
owned and operated by the City of Jacksonville.
Public Participation: The City of Jacksonville issued $49.0 million in revenue bonds secured by sales tax revenue. The State of
Florida contributed $72.0 million of funds in the form of a sales tax rebate, bed tax and convention
development tax.
Private Participation: The Jaguars contributed $20.0 million to assist in project funding.
City of Jacksonville
Sales Tax .
$49.0 million
Total Development Costs:
$141.0 million , .
Public Participation:
86%
Private Partic@ation:
14%
Jacksonville Jaguars
$20.0 million
State of Florida
Sales Tax Rebate,
Bed Tax & Convention
.--- -----.--_ --- - De$v7e2lo.0p mmielnlito Tn ax
PACE 22
AL LTE L STADI U M - OTHER F~NANCI~SSAULES
Applicable ticket taxes include an inflating ticket surcharge ($2.60 in 1998 and $2.65 in 1999) in
addition to a 6.75% State sales tax.
Property taxes are not applicable since the facility is publicly owned.
General Lease Terms: The Jacksonville Jaguars entered into a 30-year lease with the City of Jacksonville. The Jaguars pay an
annual fee of $250,000 for the first five years, increasing to $500,000 for years 6-10, $1.0 million for
years 11-20 and $1.25 million for years 21-30. Of City-controlled parking, the City receives $2.00 per
vehicle, while the Jaguars retain remaining parking revenue. The City receives the first $250,000 of
naming rights revenue, while the Jaguars receive the next $250,000 and all remaining naming rights
revenue is split equally. All other stadium-related revenues are retained by the Jaguars. Fixed and
game day operating expenses are the responsibility of the City.
Other Development / The Jaguars are responsible for the annual payments related to the debt service for $12 million of
Lease Issues: stadium cost overruns (approximately $750,000 per annum). The team's contribution was originally
intended to approximate $8.0 million.
t .
PAGE 23
Team, City, State: St. Louis Rams (NFL), St. Louis, Missouri
General Description: The multipurpose Transworld Dome was completed in 1995, and is owned and operated by the St.
Louis Convention and Visitors Commission (CVC). It has a seating capacity of 65,000 and has 120
private suites and 6,200 club seats.
Public Participation: The majority of the $299.0 million in project costs was funded by public financing. In 1991, $266.0
million in bonds were issued for the project: 50% in State of Missouri G.O. Bonds, 25% in City of St.
Louis G.O. Bonds, and 25% in St. Louis County Revenue Bonds backed by revenues from a 3.5%
hotevmotel tax. Of the $266 million, $33.0 million was placed into CVC reserve accounts, $7.0 million
was paid in underwriting fees and other costs related to issuance, leaving $226.0 million to fund
construction. The remaining $73.0 million of development costs were funded through $62.0 million in
interest earnings.
Private Participation: Approximately $1 1.0 million in CVC proceeds from the sale of personal seat licenses were used to fund
the remaining portion of facility development costs.
State of Missouri
Total Development Costs:
Personal Seat License
Public Partt'cipation:
Privccte Participation:
$56.5 million
PAGE 24
---,--,------,--------
Ticket Taxes: Applicable ticket taxes include a 5.0% admissions tax and a 6.85% State sales tax.
Property Taxes: Property taxes are not applicable since the facility is publicly-owned.
General Lease Terms: The Rams retain 100% of all gate receipts and pay the CVC $250,000 in annual rent. The Rams
receive 100% of all revenues related to net concessions, novelties, private suites and club seats,
catering, as well as local broadcasting. The Rams retain 67% of the net revenues generated from
parking and 75% of the first $6 million and 90% in excess of $6 million of the net advertising
revenues. However, the Rams retain 100% of football-related advertising (sponsorship) revenue. The
CVC is responsible for all fixed expenses and capital improvements, while the Rams cover game-day
expenses. In addition, the lease agreement places guarantees on the amount of annual net stadium
revenue received by the Rams based on a number of determinants.
Other Development/ The CVC was responsible for 100% of all cost overruns.
Lease Issues:
I 1 PAGE 25
- --,---,-- - --,-- -,-p-
Team, City, State: Carolina Panthers (NFL), Charlotte, North Carolina
General Description: The football-only Ericsson Stadium was completed in 1995, and is owned and operated by the Carolina Panthers.
The total development cost for Ericsson Stadium approximated $242.9 million, including $187.0 million in total
construction costs and $55.9 million in costs related to land acquisition and infrastructure improvements. The new
stadium is owned and operated by the Panthers.
Public Participation: Approximately $55.9 million in funds were provided by the public, all related to land acquisition and infrastructure
improvements. The City of Charlotte funded $33.4 million for land acquisition and site improvements, the state of
North Carolina provided $8.5 million for roadway improvements, and Mecklenberg County funded $14.0 million
for purchase and relocation of a jailhouse and other buildings.
Private Participation: Private funds approximated $1 87.0 million in total, all related to stadium construction costs, with approximately
$150.0 million in hard costs and $37.0 million in soft costs. The Carolina Panthers provided $65.0 million through
stadium debt financing through NationsBank. The additional $122.0 million ($192.0 million before income taxes)
was raised through the sale of personal seat licenses.
Personal Seat
License Revenues
State of North Carolina
ecklenburg County
PN blic Participation:
Private Participation: Panthers Stadium
City of Charlotte
$33.4 million
PAGE 26
E R ICSSONS TADI u M - OTHER FINANCIAILS SUES
P
Applicable ticket taxes include a 3.0% admissions tax and a 6.0% sales tax.
The Panthers are also responsible for property taxes, which are estimated at approximately $2.0 million
per year.
General Lease Terms: The Panthers retain all stadium revenues and are responsible for operating expenses.
Other Development / The Panthers were responsible for all cost overruns.
Lease Issues:
PAGE 27
w
NEW HOUSTON STADIUM (2002)
- - ---p+--p--,---,---,-,-,---w-- -------,------------
Team, City, State: Unknown, Houston, Texas
General Description: The Harris County Sports Authority, the Houston Livestock Show and Rodeo and Houston NR, Holdings, Inc.
agreed to a memorandum of understanding with regard to the development of a new multipurpose retractable roof
stadium capable of attracting an expansion or existing NFL franchise to Houston.
Public Participation: The Sports Authority will contribute approximately $195 million secured by the City's hotel occupancy taxes and
short-term vehicle rental taxes. The Sports Authority has also agreed to fund the construction period interest which
is estimated to cost $31 million, while the value of the land donated by the County is approximately $99 million.
Finally, the County will provide a new chilled water plant which will provide chilled water for the new stadium and
the Astrodome which may be converteil to a convention center,
Private Participation: The Houston NFL team will contribute $50 million which will be generated by the sale of PSLs. In addition, the
team will pay an annual rent payment of approximately $1.050 million in addition to a ticket and parking tax which
will collectively provide approximately $30 million for construction. The Houston Livestock Rodeo and Show will
also pay an annual rent which is estimated to provide $35 million for construction.
Sports Authority
Auto RentaVHotel
Houston Rodeo Rent
Public Participation:
Private Participation:
NFL Team Rent
$50.0 million
N EW H OUSTON N FL STADI U M - QTHER FINANCIAILSS UES
---
Ticket Taxes: Applicable ticket taxes include a 10% ticket tax not to exceed $2.00 per ticket.
Property taxes are not applicable since the facility is publicly-owned.
General Lease Terms: The Authority will operate the stadium and be responsible for all operating expenses, but will be provided
$728,000 per annum from the NFL team. The Nn, team will pay an annual rent payment of $1.050
million, a parking surcharge of $1 .OO per car and a percentage of advertising. The team will retain all
other team and stadium related revenues excluding advertising. The team will retain approximately 83
percent of naming rights revenue, with the Sports Authority retaining 5 percent and the Houston Rodeo
and Livestock Show retaining 12, percent. Other advertising revenue will be allocated to the three entities
in various percentages.
NEW HARTFORDS TADIU(M2002 )
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Team, City, State: Unknown, Hartford

Click tabs to swap between content that is broken into logical sections.

Copyright to this resource is held by the creating agency and is provided here for educational purposes only. It may not be downloaded, reproduced or distributed in any format without written permission of the creating agency. Any attempt to circumvent the access controls placed on this file is a violation of United States and international copyright laws, and is subject to criminal prosecution.

ARIZONA TOURISM RETENTION AND PROMOTION
GOVERNOR'S STADIUM PLAN "B" ADVISORY TASK FORCE
FINAL REPORT
JANUARY 31, 2000
GOVERNOR'S STADIUM PLAN "B"
ADVISORY TASK FORCE
%
January 3 1, 2000
The Honorable Jane Dee Hull
Arizona State Capitol
1700 W. Washington
Phoenix, AZ 85007
Dear Governor Hull:
We are pleased to present you with the Final Report of the "Governor's Stadium Plan
"B" Advisory Task Force." This report, unanimously adopted by the Task Force, is the
culmination of months of effort on the part of the members, technical support staff and advisory
members.
Since the initial appointment in November, the Task Force has met six times, including
an evening "Open House." The members have taken their charge seriously and have spent
countless hours researching the issues, listening to presentations, debating the merits of each
proposal and ultimately, adopting the Final Report.
You asked the Task Force to explore fbnding options for a potential professional-grade
football facility and arrive at an appropriate publiclprivate partnership. In exploring the hnding
options, however, the Task Force discovered that the potential loss of the Arizona Cardinals, the
Super Bowl and the status of the Fiesta Bowl are not the only threats facing the State's economic
base. Tourism, one of Arizona's leading industries, is being threatened by aggressive marketing
efforts in other states. In addition, the Cactus League is being threatened with the loss of teams
to Las Vegas and Florida. Based on this information, the Task Force concluded that any
proposed capital finance plan for a stadium must also address the larger issue of tourism
retention and promotion.
The Task Force proposes construction of a NFL grade, $329 million multipurpose
stadium facility. This will enable us to retain the Arizona Cardinals, ensure the continued status
of the Fiesta Bowl as a top tier bowl and vie for a Super Bowl every fifth year. The stadium
would be hnded through a publiclprivate partnership. Fifty-two percent of the hnding would be
privatelvenue related, $75 million of which will be contributed by the Arizona Cardinals. Forty-eight
percent would be fbnded by new public monies. The new monies would be raised through
a modest bed tadcar rental tax increase, paid primarily by out-of-state visitors. Only a portion of
the monies raised through these modest tax increases will go toward stadium construction. The
remaining amount would go directly back into tourism promotion and the Cactus League,
doubling the Arizona tourism promotion budget in the first year.
The Task Force firmly believes that the proposal submitted in the Final Report represents
the best interests of the State. Consistent with your charge, the proposed stadium hnding plan 1)
does not rely on a general tax increase and 2) minimizes the impact on the average Arizonan. In
fact, only $22 million of the $329 million cost of the stadium will be paid by Arizona taxpayers
This is less than the annual state taxes derived from the sporting events, entertainment, and trade
shows that are retained, strengthened or attracted through this proposal.
You will also note that the $75 million contribution from the Arizona Cardinals is well
above the national average of $54 million. And though the Arizona Cardinals are contributing
heavily to the construction of the stadium, they will retain no ownership rights. The stadium will
be owned and operated by a public authority.
The proposed plan is far more than a new football stadium. It is an investment in
Arizona's future. The total annual economic impact of events to be held at the new facility is
well over $300 million dollars. The benefit of Cactus League Baseball, which is strengthened
under this plan, is over $200 million. Finally, tourism officials estimate that the state will
receive $7 of benefit for each $1 invested in tourism, or an additional $42 million in the first year
alone.
The members of the Task Force are extremely proud of the proposal we submit to you
today in our Final Report. We encourage you to consider its recommendations and introduce
appropriate legislation to implement the proposal.
Sincerely,
Mike Wklborn
Chairman
Enclosure
cc: Senate President Brenda Burns
House Speaker Jeff Groscost
Senate Minority Leader Jack Brown
House Minority Leader Bob McLendon
ARIZONA TOURISM RETENTION AN0 PROMOTION
A SUMMARY OF THE RECOMMENDAlTONS OF THE
GOVERNOR'S PLAN B ADVISORY COMMITTEE
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM
Arizonu is fuci/ng sevucrl economic threats
P The loss of our NFL Franchise.
O The loss of Fiesta Bowl status as a Top-Tier' bowl to
Houston or another better venue.
U The loss of Cactus Leaauc teams to Las Vegasfilorida.
P The continuing loss of tourism market share seen in past
2 years (loss of share equsled $600 million).
Arizonu is presented with sme key econrwnic development
opportunities
Q With a new stadium:
O Arizona will have a SutaerBowl every 5* year.
O Major league soccer, and Pan Am and World Cup
games are Q distinct possibility.
0 NCAA Final-Four Championship Basketball.
0 We can attract maior trade shows that would like a
large, enclosed facility with seating and
electric/audio-visual in floor.
PROPOSAL
Q Construct an ML grade, $329 million multipurpose
stadium facility.
0 Retractable roof and field, with seating for 78,000 and
appropriate parking.
P Re-energize Cactus League with monies to upgrade
existing facilities as leases expire, and to attract two
new teams, including The LA Dodgers.
0 Provide immediate doubling of AZ tourism promotion
budget, quadrupling in 10 years.
P Attract major league soccer franchise to play in new
stadium in summer months.
LOCAITON
0 A new Stadium and Tourism Promotion Authority would be
created to implement this plan, to receive monies, and
enter into contracts.
Q There are two sites in Phoenix, two in Tempe, and a
shared site on the border of Tempe and Mesa under
consideration.
P The task force has developed site selection criteria for
the Authority to consider in selecting the best site for
the new stadium.
P The most important factor may be "the best deal",
meaning a locality's ability to cover all costs above the
cost of the stadium itself.
P The stadium would be owned by the public, through the
authority.
FINANCING
P 52% of funding would be private/venue related, and 48%
would be new public monies.
P The Cardinals $75 million contribution compares -favorably
to a league average of $54 million.
P The new public monies would be raised through a modest
bed tax/car rental tax increase that would keep
Arizona's tourism taxes below national averages.
P Some 85-95% of the new tax would be paid by visitors
to Arizona.
P Only $22 million of the $329M cost of the stadium would
be financed by AZ taxpayers.
O This is less than the annual state taxes derived from the
sporting events, entertainment, and trade shows that are
retained, strengthened or attracted through this
proposal.
Sources of Funding
Venue
Relate
Taxes
23%
New Tourism
Taxes paid
by Arizonans
7%
ECONOMIC IMPACT
P This plan is far more than a new football stadium for
The Arizona Cardinals. It is a bold plan to strengthen
Tourism, one of Arizona's leading industries.
0 The total annual benefit of events to be held at the new
multipurpose facility is nearly $500 million dollars.
P The benefit of Cactus League Baseball, which is
strengthened under this plan, is over $200 million.
Adding the LA bodgers would bring in an additional $30
million annuallv.
P Finally, tourism officials estimate that the state will
receive $7 of benefit for each $1 invested in tourism
promotion. This aspect of the plan would more
than offset the Arizona Taxpayer impact of the new
stadium.
1/28/00
Introduction
In November of 1999, Governor Jane Dee Hull appointed 35 of the State's top
business and community leaders to serve on a special task force to study funding options
for a NFL-quality football stadium. (Tab 1) Concerned about the potential economic
impact of the loss of the Arizona Cardinals, future Super Bowls and the Fiesta Bowl's
status, the Governor decided that "it was in the State's best interest for leaders in both the
public and private sectors to give this matter serious thought." She directed the Task
Force to research the need for a new stadium, assess its economic impact and devise a
possible funding package. Her only restrictions placed on the task force's deliberations
were that the funding package minimize the impact on the average Arizona resident. A
copy of the Governor's letter to Task Force members is at Tab 2.
The Task Force work has been highly publicized. It has held 6 meetings since
early November. Copies of the minutes from the Task Force meetings are at Tab 3. In
addition, the Task Force held an "open house" to meet with members of the public and
solicit their comments and recommendations on the proposed stadium. This was well
attended by members of the Task Force, interested citizens and the media.
Business Analysis
The 35 Task Force members approached their charge as they would any other
business decision. Before they could tackle the questions of what, where and how, they
had to ask themselves the basic question of whether it made good business sense to try to
retain the state's NFL franchise, future Super Bowls and the Fiesta Bowl's status. What
does NFL and Fiesta Bowl status mean to the state? Is a new stadium a good investment
for the State? What does Arizona gain by building a new stadium? What does Arizona
lose if it does not build one? These were all questions discussed by the Task Force at its
first meetings.
The Task Force made the following findings:
1. Arizona is threatened with the loss of significant revenues and status
if the Cardinals are forced to relocate.
NFL status affects everything from national prominence to business relocations to
tourism to tax revenues. For Arizona, this translates into big money. Since relocating
here in 1988, the Cardinals have had an estimated $1 50 million per year economic impact
on the state according to a presentation by Ernst & Young (Tab 4). In 1999,421,000 fans
attended Cardinal home games, including 1 12,000 visitors. In addition, nationally
televised Cardinal games have provided the state and the valley with priceless public
exposure. On December 19, 1999, 150 million international viewers tuned in to watcli
the Arizona Cardinals play the Buffalo Bills at Sun Devil Stadium, In each broadcast are
scenic views of Arizona that can be best described as "Chamber of Commerce shots."
Regularly, 70 million viewers outside of Arizona tune in to watch the Cardinals play.
This type of tourism promotion would cost the State millions of dollars if it had to buy
the media time itself.
Governor's Stadium Plan '%I3" Advisory Task Force
Final Report
January 2000 P a ~2e
Several states around the country have recognized the economic impact of
achieving NFL status and have built or are in the process of building new stadiums to
retain their status or to woo NFL teams to relocate. These stadiums are state-of-the-art
and are able to house on the average 70,000 fans. In Arizona, our NFL franchise plays in
a college football stadium which, by all accounts, is inadequate for professioizal football,
Super Bowls, or national championship collegiate football games. Moreover, it is the
only professional sports team to play in a college stadium. The inadequacy of this
stadium makes it extremely difficult for the Cardinals to compete economically with
other NFL teams.
2. The Fiesta Bowl's status as a top-tier bowl game is threatened by new
stadiums across the country.
The Fiesta Bowl is currently one of the nation's premier bowls. It is a member of
the Bowl Championship Series (BCS) along with the Rose Bowl, the Sugar Bowl and the
Orange Bowl. As a result of its BCS status, the Fiesta Bowl creates an enormous
economic impact for the state. According to ASU's College of Business, the economic
impact of the 1999 Fiesta Bowl was $133 million. It created 2,540 jobs, produced $12
million in state and local taxes and $44 million in income to Arizona households and
businesscs. In addition, it attracted 69,000 out-of-state visitors.
Unfortunately, membership in this Championship Series, and the status it entails,
is not permanent. Bowl sites are awarded on the basis of competitive bids. Fiesta Bowl
officials fear that future bids will not be able to compete with other cities given the new
stadiums in Houston, Seattle, San Francisco, San Diego and San Antonio. Loss of
participation in this series by the Fiesta Bowl will seriously curtail the economic impact it
has on the State. The presentation to the Task Force by Fiesta Bowl officials is attached
at Tab 5.
3. Absent a new stadium, Arizona has little chance of securing multiple
Super Bowls on a recurring basis.
The 1996 Super Bowl created an economic impact of $305 million in the state
according to a study done by ASU's College of Business, attached at Tab 6. Eighty-nine
thousand out-of-state visitors attended Super Bowl XXX, resulting in visitor spending of
$109 million. In addition, it provided the state with tremendous national and
international exposure, resulting in a windfall of free tourism promotion media. Millions
D of viewers around the country and the world were treated to views of our beautiful state
and its perfect winter climate.
Currently, those cities wishing to host a Super Bowl must make a request to the
NFL. Sites are awarded based on a number of factors, including the location, climate and
venue of the proposed site. Several cities, such as Miami and New Orleans, have hosted
Super Bowls on a regular and ongoing basis. Arizona would like the opportunity to host
a Super Bowl every four or five years.
Governor's Stadium Plan "B" Advisory Task Force
Final Report
January 2000 Page 3
Unfortunately, given the number of new stadiums going up around the country,
there is virtually no chance that Arizona, given its current stadium, will be able to secure
that position.
Preliminary Conclusions
In light of the information provided, Task Force members agreed a new stadium
would not only fend off those threats, it would provide several additional benefits
including:
the opportunity for economic development and job growth
additional tax revenues
enhanced civic prestige and pride
increased tourism revenues
enhanced quality of life
the opportunity to bring Major League Soccer to the State
the opportunity to bring NCAA Final-Four Championship Basketball to the State
the opportunity to attract major trade shows
Without a new stadium, Task Force members agreed, the State could potentially
lose its NFL franchise, the Fiesta Bowl's premier ranking and its opportunity to host
future Super Bowls. Task Force members also took note that cities which have lost their
NFL franchise have spent an average of $1 billion to get one back.
Balancing, then, the benefits and potential losses, the Task Force unanimously
concluded that a new stadium was a good investment for the State and that they should
proceed with devising a possible funding package. The mission statement originally
adopted by the Task Force is attached at Tab 7.
Recognition of Additional Threats
In the course of researching possible funding options for a new stadium, the Task
Force discovered that the potential losses of significant NFL and Fiesta Bowl revenues,
much of which comes directly from tourist spending, were not the only losses facing the
state's tourism tax base. Representatives from the tourism industry, initially concerned
about a proposed increase in bed and car rental taxes, alerted the Task Force to two
additional threats to this tax base.
1. Other states, Las Vegas and other local destination marketing agencies are
systematically beating us in tourism promotion.
According to industry officials, Arizona lost tourism market share equivalent to
an estimated $800 million in direct tourist spending in 1997 and 1998. Tliis loss is
attributable to an aggressive increase in tourism budgets nationwide. Other states and
local destination marketing agencies in the U.S. now spend a combined total of over a
billion dollars competing with Arizona and its communities for the various tourism
Governor's Stadium Plan "B" Advisory Task Force
Final Repart
.January 2000 Page 4
market segments. Las Vegas alone, has begun an aggressive $100 million per year
multimedia campaign to attract visitors, proclaiming itself the leading vacation
destination in the southwest. It has, in effect, stolen the Grand Canyon as a result of its
efforts and is intent on stealing our status as the premier golf and resort community.
ed with only a $6 million annual tourism promotion budget, Arizona can do little to
combat this onslaught, and is in danger of continuing to lose market share.
2. The future of the Cactus League is threatened by competition from well
funded cities.
The Cactus League has been a highly successful venture for Arizona, with the
economic impact from visitor spending alone conservatively estimated at $200 million
annually. Now though, in addition to Florida's Grapefruit League, Las Vegas is
breathing down our backs. For the past several years, Las Vegas has been actively
engaged in efforts to bring spring training baseball to that city. It is courting as many as
four teams, including the Dodgers, who currently train in Florida and are considering
relocation. These are teams which, traditionally, Arizona would have a good shot at
attracting. Unfortunately, Arizona no longer has resources available lo take advantage of
these new opportunities. Worse yet, many of our facilities are aging and in need of
renovation, a fact which poses a future threat to retaining our existing Cactus League
teams. Finally, at the current rate of the car rental surcharge used to fund the League,
district officials do not foresee new money being available to build new facilities or even
renovate older ones until the year 201 7. (Tab 8)
Broadening of Mission
Task Force members recognized the magnitude of these additional threats to the
State's tourism tax base. As a result, members concluded that the Task Force's original
missioi~s hould be broadened to include the protection and promotion of Arizona's
tourism industry and Cactus League and directed that any capital finance plan to build a
stadium also include resources to promote tourism retention.
Stadium Design and Construction
Tlie Task Force's first order of business after deciding that an NFL quality
stadium was needed was to assess the current state of Sun Devil Stadium. They wanted
to determine whether Sun Devil Stadium could be renovated to meet design standards
and at what cost or whether a completely new stadium was needed. The construction
firm of Huber, Hunt & Nichols gave a detailed presentation on stadium design and
construction. The presentation, a copy of which is attached at Tab 9, outlined various
design possibilities based on necessary improvements and costs. The presentation also
included a review of similar stadium designs around the country.
Based on the parameters set forth for stadium design, including climate control, a
renovation of Sun Devil Stadium was estimated to cost approximately $352 million.
Contractors also estimated a construction schedule of four to six years, assuming that
construction would be suspended between August and January to allow football to be
Governor's Stadium Plan "B" Advisory Task Force
Final Report
January 2000 Paee 5
played. A base renovation of Sun Devil Stadium of $202 inillion was considered and
included improvements to stadium comfort, accessibility, premium seating, and
concessions. However, the base renovation did not include an enclosed roof or climate
control for other than the suites.
Based on those same parameters, a completely new stadium was estimated to cost
$329 million. It would have a retractable roof and retractable playing field so that it
could be used for trade shows, concerts, and a number of other options. In addition, it
would have approximately 68,000 seats, expandable to 78,000 for Bowl games.
Construction of the new stadium was estimated at three years due to the fact that a large
amount of the upfront engineering work has already been done.
Jt should be noted that in the midst of the discussions ASU decided to withdraw
Sun Devil Stadium from consideration. Setting aside the public policy reasons for one
joint professional and collegiate stadium, the Task Force honored ASU's decision to "go
it alone." In addition, the Task Force determined that a new stadium was a better
investment. Not only would the new stadium be less expensive and quicker to build, it
would serve as a multipurpose facility to host trade shows, soccer games, concerts, and
more. Many more proposed uses for a multipurpose facility are included in a handout
prepared by the Greater Phoenix Convention and Visitors Bureau found at Tab 10.
Site Selection Process
Several cities have expressed interest in the new stadium. Representatives from
Phoenix, Tempe and Mesa all gave presentations to the Task Force on suitable sites
within each of their respective cities. On behalf of Phoenix Downtown Partnership,
Brian Keamey presented a downtown Phoenix site adjacent to and southeast of the Bank
One Ballpark. (Tab 11) The site includes 35 acres and is bordered by Seventh and 1 1 th
Streets and the Union Pacific railroad tracks and Sherman Street. Councilman Cody
Williams presented a site south and west of downtown Phoenix between the 1-1 0
Freeway and the Salt River. (Tab 12) A private citizen suggested a possible site north
and east of Van Buren and Seventh Streets in downtown Phoenix.
Mayor Giuliano presented three sites within the city of Tempe, including one
which is partially located in the City of Mesa. (Tab 13) The first proposed site is 63 acres
located in the Papago Park Center near Priest Drive and Washington Street. The
remaining two sites proposed by the City of Tempe are at the southwest and southeast
comers of the intersection of the Red Mountain Freeway (202) and the Pima Freeway
(101). Mayor Brown spoke in support of the site at the southeast corner of the two
freeways.
After reviewing these proposals, the Task Force members believed that a specific
site recommendation would be premature. In fact, the Task Force believe that the
ultimate decision on location should be made by a to-be-established Authority that would
own and operate the stadium. To assist the future Authority in the site selection process,
the Task Force adopted the following criteria:
Governor's Stadium Plian "'B" Advisory Task Force
Final Report
Januarv 2000 Page 6
1. Ability to support existing ancillary businesses and to serve as catalyst for
further development
2. Parking requirements
3. Access
4. Environmental considerations
5. Speed to delivery
6. Image and visibility
7. The "right deal" structure
8. Suitability of land parcel
The attributes listed were compiled in an attempt to initiate the process and should
not be interpreted as being all-inclusive and/or exclusive. A detailed description of the
criteria can be found at Tab 14. The Task Force stressed that while the Authority
responsible for ultimately selecting the site should consider all the criteria listed, clearly
the "riglit deal", i.e. an offer of land, infrastructure and parking, was the most important.
Capital Finance Plan: Background
In devising a possible funding package for a new stadium, the Task Force spent
several weeks gathering considerable background data on NFL stadium funding. As a
part of this effort, presentations were made to the Task Force by NFL consultants,
knowledgeable national consultants on stadium financing and from experts on Arizona
funding sources. The information presented included a review of the funding plans for
fourteen of the most recently completed NFL stadium projects in other cities, as well as a
discussion and analysis of possible funding sources that might be used in Arizona.
Copies of the information presented may be found at Tabs 15, 16 and 17.
In reviewing the funding plans used for the fourteen recent stadium financings
around the country, several important items were noted by the Task Force:
I. All of the stadium projects required some level of public funding.
2. The average public sector participation was 71% of the total stadium
cost.
3. The average private sector participation was 29% of the total stadium
cost. (21% for stadium deals without personal seat license (PSL)
revenues)
4. The average team participation in the total stadium cost was $54 million.
The Task Force also reviewed possible funding sources that might be used in
Arizona for funding a new stadium. In its review, the Task Force looked at a broad array
of possible funding sources that had been used in other stadium projects, from both
public (non-userlvenue related) sources and from private (userlvenue related) sources.
Among the public funding sources reviewed were general sales taxes, visitor taxes on
hotels and motels and car rentals, state appropriations and lottery funds. Among the
userJvenwe-related contributions were items such as personal seat licenses, ticket
surcharges, player income tax revenues, stadium revenues, stadium and user sales taxes,
Governor's Stadium Plan "B" Advisory Task Force
Final Report
January 2000 Page 7
and team contributions. The presentation prepared by CS&L, Dain Rauscher Incorporated
and Bank One is located at Tab 18.
An important finding of the Task Force was that the members would not support a
general tax increase on Arizona residents to fund a portion of the stadium. Moreover, a
general tax increase would violate the Governor's instructions to the Task Force in that it
D would not minimize the impact on the average Arizonan. This finding of the Task
Force thereby eliminated a possible general sales tax on the public as a funding
option.
Capital Plan Goals
In considering alternative funding options for a new stadium, the Task Force set
forth several goals that should ideally be met by any recommended capital plan. These
goals were based on the information gathered by the Task Force as well as from feedback
from both public and private sector participants and interested parties. Four primary
goals were set forth by the Task Force:
1. The capital plan should enhance broader tourism promotion.
In addition to funding a stadium to retain the Cardinals, the Task Force found
that the capital plan should address the broader needs of the tourism industry.
To accomplish this, the plan should provide for significantly enhanced
tourism promotion funding. It should also provide funds to protect and
improve the Cactus League. Lastly, the stadium should be a multi-use facility
able to accommodate events such as the Fiesta Bowl, the Super Bowl, and
large special sporting and other events (e.g. NCAA basketball finals, soccer,
boat shows, etc.). This is particularly important in terms of retaining the
Fiesta Bowl's position as one of the top-tier college bowls in the country.
2. The capital plan should minimize the impact on Arizona residents.
Consistent with the Governor's directives and the earlier findings of the Task
Force, the capital plan should not include any general taxes on the Arizona
public. Any new taxes that are required should be paid primarily by non-resident
visitors to the state given the positive impact of the facility on
Arizona's tourism industry. The plan should also require that a significant
portion of the revenues for the stadium should be derived from users of the
facility and from the team.
3. The privatelvenue-related contribution should exceed national averages
for NFL stadiums.
The Task Force concluded that any capital plan should require that the
privatelvenue-related contribution exceed the average contribution for recent
NFL stadiums in other cities. This would require that the privatelvenue-related
contribution to the capital plan exceed 29% of the stadium cost. The
Governor's Stadium Plall "BB"A dvisory Task Force
Final Report
January 2000 Page 8
Task Force also stated that the team contribution to the stadium project should
exceed the average team contribution of $54 million for recent NFL stadiums.
4. The plan should reflect a partnership of the affected parties.
The Task Force noted that to be successful, any capital plan will have to
represent a partnership among the many affected stakeholders, including the
Cardinals, the tourism industry, the Fiesta Bowl, other stadium users, the
NFL and the State.
Capital Finance Plan
The proposed capital plan was developed not only to meet the funding needs of
the stadium, but also to meet the other goals discussed above. Specifically, the stadium
construction would use less than half of the proposed publiclnon-venue related sources.
The remaining funds generated from those new sources could be used potentially to fund
tourisni promotion and Cactus League facilities. (Tab 19)
TIie table and pie chart below show the stadium funding plan adopted by the Task
Force. Following the table and chart is a brief description of each of the proposed
funding source components.
New Stadium
Proposed Funding Plan
Private (29%)
AZ
Taxpayers Total (in millions) % of Total
Cardinals Contribution $-0- $75 22.8%
Fiesta Bowl/Other Contribution -0- 20 6.1%
Venue -Related (23%1
Athlete Income Tax Earmarking -0- 3 6 10.9%
Construction Sales Tax Recapture -0- 11 3.3%
Stadium Sales Tax Recapture (all -0- 18 5.5%
events)
Interest Earnings on Unspent Bond -0- 10 3.0%
Proceeds
%% Bed Tax -Outcounty 5 25 7.6%
1% Bed Tax -Maricopa 15 99 30.1%
3% Car Rental -Maricopa
(excluding replacement vehicles) 2 3 10.6%
$22* $329
*Less than 7% of the total cost is paid by Arizona Taxpayers.
Governor's Stadium Plan "B" Advisory Task Force
Final Report
January 2000 Page 9
- "
ProLCLd,
1.h
Publ~cINon-Venuc Related Sources (48.3%) [11 PnvateiVenue Related Sources (5 1 7%)
Description of Funding Sources
o Cardinals Contribution - The Cardinals will contribute $75 million to construct the
multi-use facility. The basis of the Cardinals' commitment is the requirement that the
team receives on-site parking revenues from a minimum of 7,500 spaces, pays its day
of game expenses and secures a use agreement similar to the most recent NFL use
agreements. The team's commitment compares to a $54 million average NFL team
contribution for the fourteen most recent NFE stadium projects. It is important to
recognize that the Cardinals will contribute $75 million in cash but will not have an
equity interest in the stadium.
@ Fiesta BowlJOtber Contribution - A capital contribution on behalf of the Fiesta
Bowl andlor other potential users of the facility. This contribution reflects a portion
of the estimated construction cost of increasing stadium seating to accommodate the
Fiesta Bowl and/or other events.
o Player Income Tax Earmarking (NFL) - Funds would be provided for the project
by dedicating income tax collections on Cardinals players and newly captured income
tax on visiting NFL players. Collection of taxes fiom out-of-state players for
Arizona's other professional sports for income earned in Arizona would be a new
source of revenue to the State. (Tab 20)
o State Sales Tax Recapture - The State sales taxes collected on stadium construction
and ongoing sales at the facility would be dedicated to the project. Without the
project, these taxes would not be collected.
o Interest Earnings on Bond Proceeds - Estimated interest earnings on bond
proceeds prior to expenditure for facility construction would be used for part of the
capital costs.
Bed Tax - A new 0.50% bed tax levied statewide (outside Maricopa County) and a
new 1.0% bed tax levied within Maricopa County. Compared to bed tax rates in
other metropolitan areas, these increases will not place Arizona's tourism industry in
Governor's Stadium Plan "B" Advisory Task Force
Final Report
January 2000 Pape 10
a non-competitive position. (Tab 21) Furthermore, a portion of these funds will be
invested to promote increased Arizona tourism.
@ Rental Car Tax -A new 3.0% tax on car rental sales in Maricopa County, with a
minimum of $2.50 per rental contract. This new tax structure would replace the
existing $2.50 car rental surcharge. The amount of the tax exceeding $2.50 per
contract would be dedicated to facility construction, to tourism promotion, and for
Cactus League facility improvements. While Arizona's rental car tax will be higher
than many other areas, our average daily rental rates are significantly below average,
thus resulting in a lower absolute impact of the tax. (Tab 22) In addition, the intent of
the plan is to exclude rentals for replacement vehicles from the additional tax, further
reducing the impact on Arizona residents.
It is the recommendation of the Task Force that a tourism and stadium authority
be created by the State. This authority would be responsible for overseeing the design
and construction of the new stadium and upon completion will own and operate the
stadium. The authority would enter into an operating agreement with a professional
facility management firm to provide for day-to-day operations. The management firm
would also be responsible for marketing the facility to special users.
The authority would also enter into use agreements with entities that will make
regular use of the facility, such as the Arizona Cardinals, the Fiesta Bowl and, perhaps, a
professional soccer team. The Cardinals use agreement would include provisions locking
in the team's contribution to construction costs and game day operating expenses. In
exchange, it would provide for the team to receive all revenues generated in connection
with the team's use of the facility including tickets, premium seating, concessions,
interior and exterior advertising, parking, etc. The team would also receive any naming
rights revenues reIated to the facility. The authority would receive revenue generated by
all other uses of the stadium.
Public Input
As noted earlier, an "Open House" meeting of the Task Force was held January
18"', 2000 at the SRP-PERA Club. The purpose was to provide citizens with the
opportunity to speak with Task Force members and others directly involved in the
process. In addition to booths devoted to the proposed stadium facility and financing,
representatives from the Arizona Cardinals, the Fiesta Bowl, the Cactus League, Arizona
Office of Tourism, Phoenix, Mesa and Tempe all hosted information booths.
The event proved highly informative. Approximately 250 citizens attended. Most of the
attendees were positive and supported the Task Force's efforts. However, even those
negatively disposed to the stadium appreciated the opportunity to meet with Task Force
members and exhibitors. The majority of attendees were concerned about four issues:
site location, ratio of public vs. private funding, avoidance of a public vote and the Fiesta
Bowl's future.
Governor's Stadium Plan "'B" Advisory Task Force
Final Report
January 2000 Page 11
Attendees were encouraged to fill out a survey, attached at Tab 23, with their thoughts
and suggestions. Sample feedback from surveys, both positive and negative, is included
at Tab 24. A Task Force summary of the event is included at Tab 25.
According to a poll conducted January 6-1 1,2000 by the Arizona Chamber of
Conlmerce, Arizona voters favor using tourism-based taxes to help pay for a new stadium
to house the NFL's Arizona Cardinals, future Super Bowls and the Fiesta Bowl. The
survey found that 56 percent of respondents favored using tourism taxes, of which most
are paid by out-of-state visitors, to pay for the public portion of any new stadium project.
The statewide survey also found that 21 percent oppose such a funding plan. Nearly a
quarter of those surveyed were undecided on the publidprivate funding plan. A copy of
the complete survey is at Tab 26.
Conclusion
This plan is far more than a new football stadium for the Arizona Cardinals. It is
a bold plan designed to enhance broader tourism promotion in Arizona. In addition to
funding a NFL-quality stadium to retain the Cardinals, it provides a venue for allowing
the Fiesta Bowl to remain a top-tier college bowl game and for regularly hosting the
Super Bowl. The plan further strengthens Arizona's tourism industry by providing for a
dedicated and growing revenue stream for tourism advertising and promotion, and
provides significant funding to protect and improve the state's Cactus League baseball
facilities.
Consistent with Governor Hull's charge, the capital plan minimizes the impact on
Arizona residents. It accomplishes this by funding a new stadium through "user"
contributions such as earmarked income tax revenue from NFL players, recaptured sales
taxes from the stadium itself, sizable capital contribution from the Cardinals, the Fiesta
Bowl and other users, and from "beneficiary7' contributions. The beneficiary (tourism)
contributions come from a small increase in the current hospitality and car rental taxes,
which are paid primarily by visitors to the State. In fact, only 7% of the entire $329
million stadium construction cost will be paid by Arizona taxpayers.
Overall, the plan provides that contributions from privatelvenue related sources
are 52% of the stadium's projected cost, significantly higher than the average of 29% for
recent NFL stadiums across the country. Similarly, the capital contribution by the
Cardinals of $75 million is well above the average team contribution for other NFL
stadiums of $54 million.
The Task Force firmly believes that their proposed capital plan is a "win-win"
solution for everyone. Most importantly, it is a win for the Arizona economy and
Arizona taxpayers. This plan helps ensure the continuation of major sporting events with
an annual economic impact of over $550 million per year. The additional tourism
promotion will return $7 for every $1 invested. On this basis alone, the State would
recoup its investment in the new stadium. The proceeds of the financing plan are all
Governor's Stadium Plan "'B" Advisory Task Force
Final Report
1
invested in Arizona, even though much of the financing comes from outside. During the
three years of construction, some 3,000 jobs will be generated. There are few, if any,
investments the State could make that would result in such a windfall.
The Task Force concludes that it is in the State's best interest to proceed with this
proposal as quickly as possible. It recommends that legislation be drafted to:
1. Establish a ""Tourism and Sports Retention Authority9' (the 66Authority")
2. Grant the AuthoriQ the power to establish a fund for stadium construction
3. Authorize the Authority to levy a statewide bed tax (excluding Maricopa
County) of 0.50% and a Maricopa County bed tax of 1.0%, the proceeds of
which are to be used for stadium construction and tourism promotion
4. Authorize the Authority to levy a car rental tax of 3% in Maricopa County, with
a minimum of $2.50 per rental contract, the proceeds of which are to be used for
stadium construction, tourism promotion and Cactus League
5. Authorize the AuthoriQ to recapture state sales taxes collected on construction
of the stadium and ongoing sales at the facility.
6. Direct that the proceeds from income tax collection on Cardinals players and
visiting NFL players will go into the stadium construction fund established by
the Authority
7. Direct that the interest earnings on bond proceeds will go into the stadium
construction hnd established by the Authority.
8. Grant the Authority all mnecessary powers to construct, own and operate a
multipurpose facility.
The Task Force urges the Governor and members of the Legislature to fully consider the
capital funding plan contained in this report and adopt the proposal.
INDEX
Plan "B" Task Force Membership List ...............................................................................1
Governor Hull's Letter Appointing Task Force Members .................................................2.
Minutes from Task Force Meetings:
11/22/99.12/2/99.12/16/99~1/14/001. /21/00 ......................................................................3
Economic Impact Presentation by Ernst & Young (Handout) ..........................................4.
Fiesta Bowl Presentation (Handout) .................................................................................5..
Economic Impact of Super Bowl XXX Study Done by
ASU College of Business ............................................................................................... 6
Task Force's Original Mission Statement .......................................................................... 7
List of Current Cactus Lease Teams and Lease Expirations ..............................................8.
Stadium Design Presentation by Huber. Hunt & Nichols ..................................................9.
Proposed Uses for Multipurpose Facility Presentation
by Greater Phoenix Convention and Visitors Bureau ....................................................1.0
City of Phoenix Site Proposal ........................................................................................1.1..
Councilman Cody Williams' Site Proposal ...................................................................1..2.
Letter from Mayor Giuliano Proposing Tempe Sites ......................................................1..3
Site Selection Criteria Adopted by Task Force ............................................................... 14
Presentation by CS&L on Stadium Projects Nationwide .................................................. 15
D Memorandum from Rick Horrow Regarding Stadium Project in Pennsylvania ...............1 6
Handout Regarding Stadium Funding Sources in Other States ........................................1 7
Presentation by CS&L. Dain Rauscher Incorporated and
Bank One on Potential Funding Sources .....................................................................1..8.
Revenue Projection Table and Explanation .................................................................... 19
Memorandum from Gallagher & Kennedy Regarding "State Taxation of
Non-Resident Professional Athletes" ..........................................................................2..0..
Bed Tax Comparison for Comparable Markets .............................................................2..1.
Rental Car Rate Comparison for Comparable Markets ..................................................2..2
"Open House" Survey ..................................................................................................2..3.. .
Sample "Open House" Feedback .................................................................................... 24
Task Force Summary of "Open House" .........................................................................2..5.
Arizona Chamber of Commerce Poll .............................................................................2..6.
Governor's Stadium Plan "B" Advisory Task Force
Mike Welborn, Chairman
Eddie Basha
Ron Bergamo
David Beckham
Craig Berge
Mike Bidwill
Dave Brown
Drew Brown
Richard Burke
Don Carson
Jerry Colangelo
Bob Delgado
Joe Desplinter
George Evans
Bob Fannin
Bill Franke
Jim Grogan
Gregg Holmes
Robert C. Hunt
Frank Kush
Bob Lavinia
Bob Marshall
Mark McDermott
Denise Meridith
Arte Moreno
D
Linda Brock Nelson
John Ogden
William Peltier
William Post
David Radcliffe
Barbara Ralston
Dick Silverman
Don Ulnch
Steve Wheeler
Karen Wittmer
Ex-Officio Members (Nonvoting)
Ted Ferris
Jimmy Jayne
Mark Swenson
Technical Support Members
Chris Baier
Steve Betts
J. Brian Smith
MEMBERSHIP
Bank One
Bashas' Markets Inc.
KWBA TV
Lyon & Beckham
Berge Ford
Arizona Cardinals
Northern Arizona University
DMB Associates, Inc.
Phoenix Coyotes
Don & Charlie's
Arizona Diamondbacks
Hensley & Company
Ernst & Young
Evans Kuhn & Assoc., Inc.
Steptoe & Johnson
America West Airlines
Samoth Capital Corp.
Cox Communications
Huber, Hunt & Nichols
Former ASU Football Coach
Tosco Marketing Company
Arizona Office of Tourism
Greater Phoenix Black Chamber of Commerce
Outdoor Systems Advertising
LBN Associates, L.L.C.
SunCor Development Company
ViAD Corp.
Arizona Public Service Company
Greater Phoenix Convention &Visitors Bureau
Camelback Community Bank
SRP
RSI Enterprises
Snell & Wilmer
The Tribune
Office of the Governor
Arizona House of Representatives
Arizona State Senate
Department of Commerce
Gallagher & Kennedy
Smith & Harroff, Inc.
JANE DEE HULL
GOVERNOR
STATEOF ARIZONA
November 5,1999
I am writing to ask you to serve on a special Taskforce comprised of major business and
community leaders to explore funding options for a potential professional-grade football facility.
Such a facility may be necessary to retain Arizona's NFL franchise, to be placed on a regular
rotation for future Super Bowls, and to keep the Fiesta Bowl as one of the premier collegiate bowl
games in the country, all of which have a major economic impact on our state.
As you know, a vote last May in the City of Mesa rejected a large development proposal that
included a new football stadium as well as a convention center. The purpose of the 'Plan B Task
Forcen will be to study various options in an attempt to arrive at an appropriate publidprivate
partnership that would not include elements other than the football stadium and related facilities.
I would note that many other states have faced stadium challenges similar to the one we are
confronting here.
I have concluded that it is in our state's best interest for leaders in both the public and private
sectors to give this matter serious thought. My only preconceived notion is that any public
financing will minimize the impact on the average Arizonan, particularly those that choose to not
support professional sports.
Knowing that your time is extremely valuable, considerable preparation for the work of the
Taskforce has already been accomplished. I anticipate having several meetings over the next
three months and concluding the work of the Taskforce before February of next year. Mike
Welborn of Bank One Arizona has graciously agreed to host the first meeting. It will be held on
Wednesday, November 10'. from 900 to 11:OO a.m. on the 36' floor of the BankOne Building.
I want to thank you personally for your willingness to consider this important assignment and look
forward to working with you in the weeks ahead.
Sincerely,
1- JANE DEE HULL
Governor
1700 WEST WASWINGTOPNH, OENIX, ARIZON8A5 007
(602) 542433 1 FAX (602) 542-7601 WWW.GOVERN0RSTATE.AzvS
Stadium Plan B Advisorv Task Force
Minutes of Meeting on November 22,1999 - 9:00 a.m.
. .
Attendance
Members Ex Officio Members
Mike Welborn
Bob Hunt
Richard Burke
Jim Grogan
Mike Bidwill
Bob Marshall
Karen Wittmer
Craig Berge
Bob Fannin
Arte Moreno
Bob Delgado
John Ogden
Dave Radcliffe
Dave Beckham
Eddie Basha
Joe Desplinter
Bill Post
Ron Bergarno
Frank Kush
Bob Lavinia
Greg Holmes
Steve Wheeler
Bill Peltier
Dick Silverman
D Denise Meridith
Mark McDerrnitt
Ted Fems
Mark Swenson
Technical Advisors
Chris Baier
Jay Smith
Steve Betts
Guests
Allan Price
Barry Smitheman
Ron Ober
Paul Jensen
C.A. Howlett
Absent
Don Carson
Drew Brown
Jerry Colangelo
George Evans
Bill Franke
Linda Brock Nelson
Barbara Ralston
Don Ulrich
Dave Brown
D
1. Introduction: Mike Welborn opened the meeting to the public and asked the
members of the Task Force and guests to introduce themselves.
2. Plan B Goals: Mike Welborn restated the three goals presented at the previous
D meeting, asked for discussion, and recognized a consensus on those goals.
3. Stadium Desinn & Costs: Bob Hunt of Huber, Hunt & Nichols gave a
presentation of open air and climate controlled stadium design options and costs
including renovation of Sun Devil Stadium. Bob Aylesworth of Huber, Hunt & Nichols
then gave an overview of a concept for a possible new multi-purpose stadium facility.
The Task Force discussed the various facility components and costs.
David Radcliffe suggested that a market feasibility study be done to determine the
potential uses of the facility and need for various components. Mr. Radcliffe consented
to coordinate the development of such a study.
4. Future Meetinas: Mike Welborn indicated that the next meeting will finalize a
discussion on stadium design and costs, then will provide an overview of funding
D options. Bob Marshall volunteered to prepare a draft mission statement for the next
meeting.
The next meeting will be held on December 2nd at 8:30 a.m. at Hensley & Co.,
4201 N. 45thA venue. The meeting on December 1 6w~ill~ be held at TOSCO Marketing
D
Co., 1500 N. Priest Drive in Tempe.
Stadium Plan B Advisow Task Force
Minutes of Meeting on December 2,1999 - 9:00 a.m.
Attendance
Members Chris Bowen
Mike Welborn
Bob Hunt
Jim Grogan
Mike Bidwill
Bob Marshall
Karen Wittrner
Craig Berge
Bob Fannin
Arte Moreno
Bob Delgado
John Ogden
Dave Radcliffe
Dave Beckham
Joe Desplinter
Bill Post
Frank Kush
Greg Holmes
Steve Wheeler
Bill Peltier
Don Carlson
George Evans
Jerry Colangelo
Linda Brock Nelson
Barbara Ralston
Dick Silverman
Ex Officio Members
Mark McDermitt
Ted Ferris
Mark Swenson
Technical Advisors
Chris Baier
Jay Smith
Steve Betts
Peter Hayes
Guests
Barry Smitherman
Ron Ober
Paul Jensen
C.A. Howlett
George Seitts
Dean Short
Kurt Freund
John Snider
Bill Rhoda
Brian McGough
Absent
Drew Brown
Bill Franke
Don Ulrich
Dave Brown
Eddie Basha
Ron Bergarno
Bob Lavinia
Denise Meridith
1. Introduction: Bob Delgado opened the meeting to the public and asked the
members of the Task Force and guests to introduce themselves. Mike Welborn gave an
overview of the discussion fiom the previous meeting.
2. Mission Statement: Bob Marshall presented a draft mission statement for the
Task Force and solicited comments fiom the members.
3. Construction Desim Follow-Uv: Bob Hunt provided follow-up information
regarding construction costs and cost savings of various facility components. Mike
Bidwill and Steve Wheeler noted the advantage to Super Bowls, Fiesta Bowls and the
Cardinals of a movable grass field and retractable roof.
4. Multipurpose Use Follow-Uv: Dave Radcliffe presented information regarding
special event uses of the proposed facility and responded to questions. Chris Baier
reported on the interest of Major League Soccer in expanding into the Phoenix market
and using the proposed facility. He also described the possible uses by national sporting
events such as World Cup Soccer and Final Four events. Members discussed the design
elements necessary for these special event uses.
5. Funding Overview: Bill Rhoda, Kurt Freund and Brian McGough presented an
overview of stadium funding considerations and potential sources. The members
discussed the pros andcons of several of the funding sources and requested additional
information at the next meeting regarding many of the options.
6. Next Meeting: The next meeting will be held on December 16" from 9:00 a.m. to
12:OO p.m. at Tosco Marketing Co. The meeting will include a follow-up discussion on
funding sources and presentations by local government officials on possible stadium
sites.
7. Minutes: The minutes of the meeting on November 22, 1999 previously
distributed were approved.
Stadium Plan B Advisorv Task Force
Minutes of Meeting on December 16,1999 - 9:00 a.m.
Attendance
Members
Technical Advisors
Bob Hunt
Jim Grogan
Mike Bidwill
Bob Marshall
Karen Wittmer
Craig Berge
Bob Fannin
Bob Delgado
Dave Radcliffe
Joe Desplinter
Frank Kush
Greg Holmes
Steve Wheeler
George Evans
Jerry Colangelo
Linda Brock Nelson
Barbara Ralston
Dick Silverman
Bob Lavinia
Denise Meridith
Richard Burke
Eddie Basha
Ron Bergamo
Ex Officio Members
Ted Ferris
Mark Swenson
Chris Baier
Jay Smith
Steve Betts
Peter Hayes
Guests
Kurt Freund
John Snider
Bill Rhoda
Rick Honow
John Junker
Brian Kearney
Bill Stephens
Councilman Cody Williams
Mayor Brown
Mayor Giuliano
Absent
Drew Brown
Bill Franke
Don Ulrich
Dave Brown
Mike Welborn
Arte Moreno
John Ogden
Dave Beckham
Bill Post
Bill Peltier
Don Carson
Mark McDermitt
1. Introduction: Bob Lavinia welcomed everyone, opened the meeting and received
approval of the minutes of the previous meeting. Ted Ferris gave a brief overview of the
previous activities of the Task Force.
2. Fundinn Options Follow-Up: Bill Rhoda, CSL International, presented
information regarding how the Phoenix Metro area compares against other metropolitan
areas regarding bed taxes and rental car rates. Jim Grogan described the meetings with
the Tourism Alliance and hotel/motel industry to attempt to create a partnership for
tourism promotion. Steve Betts described the discussions with the car rental industry
regarding a possible winlwin funding plan. Mr. Betts also distributed information and
described the process to establish an apportionment of income taxes on non-resident
athletes.
3. Fiesta Bowl: John Junker, Executive Director of the Fiesta Bowl, gave a
presentation that included the background of the game and status as a top tier bowl game;
competitive challenges from other new venues across the country; economic impacts of
the game and events; qyality of life benefits to the community; need for this new facility.
4. Possible Sites: On behalf of the Phoenix Downtown Partnership, Brian Kearney
presented a downtown Phoenix site adjacent to and southeast of the Bank One Ballpark,
and described the advantages of the proposed site. Councilman Cody Williams also
supported the site and responded to questions. In addition, Councilman Williams
presented a site south and west of downtown Phoenix between the 1-1 0 Freeway and the
Salt River.
Mayor Giuliano presented three sites within the City of Tempe: one in Papago
Center, one each at the southwest and southeast corners of the 202 and 101 Freeways.
Mayor Brown spoke of his support for keeping the Cardinals in Arizona and for the site
at the southeast comer of the two freeways.
Bill Stephens presented a possible site north and east of Van Buren and 7th
Streets.
Bob Marshall volunteered to prepare draft criteria to be considered by the Task
~ o kaet t he next meeting. The Task Force discussed the factors that should be considered
in the criteria.
5. Next meetin~s: A public open house will be held on the evening of January 6"
with the location to be determined. The following meeting will be hosted by Jim Grogan
on Friday, January 14" at 9:00 a.m. at the Chaparral Suites in Scottsdale.
Stadium Plan B Advisorv Task Force
Minutes of Meeting on January 14,2000 - 9:00 a.m.
Attendance
Members
Craig Berge
Mike Bidwill
Drew Brown
Richard Burke
Bob Delgado
Joe Desplinter
Bob Fannin
Jim Grogan
Gregg Holmes
Bob Hunt
Frank Kush
Bob Lavinia
Bob Marshall
Linda Brock Nelson
John Ogden
Bill Peltier
Dave Radcliffe
Barbara Ralston
Dick Silverman
Don Ulrich
Mike Welborn
Steve Wheeler
Karen Wittmer
Technical Advisors
Chris Baier
Steve Betts
Chris Bowen
Ted Ferris
Peter Hayes
Mark McDermott
J. Brian Smith
Guests
Bill Bidwill
Kurt Freund
Rick Horrow
Barry Smitherman
John Snider
Absent
Eddie Basha
Ron Bergamo
Dave Beckham
Dave Brown
Don Carson
Jerry Colangelo
George Evans
Bill Franke
Denise Meridit h
h e Moreno
Bill Post
1. Introduction: Mike Welborn welcomed everyone, opened the meeting and gave a
brief history of the previous Task Force deliberations.
2. Site Selection Criteria: Bob Marshall distributed the proposed criteria and
explained the process by which cities may propose sites. He emphasized that
these criteria are neutral and do not favor any one particular site.
Open House: Bob Marshall gave a presentation on the Open House and stressed
the need to create a dialogue between members of the Task Force and the
community. The Open House will be held on January 18, 2000, from 6:00 p.m. to
9:00 p.m. at the Pera Club. It will cover four topic areas. The four areas are the
stadium, financing, the Cardinals and Fiesta Bowl and host cities. He requested
that all members attend.
Tourism Industry: Jim Grogan reported that they have been meeting with
representatives fiom the tourism industry. According to the industry, there needs
to be an increased dedicated hnding source for tourism in order for the industry
to support the package.
Bed Tax and Car Tax Proposal: Ted Ferris explained the proposed tax increases.
In order to keep the industry competitive, a modest increase was proposed. The
proposal assumes an 8% growth rate.
Threat to Tourism: Mark McDermott explained how the dialogue has evolved
from a discussion on the stadium to a tourism business retention proposal.
According to Mark, the industry's growth has diminished and, in fact, Arizona is
losing market share. His industry appreciates the opportunity to address this in
the proposed finance plan.
Rental Car Tax: Steve Betts explained the proposed rental car tax. The additional
revenue would go to find the stadium and the Cactus League. This will allow the
Cactus League to pursue new teams and update existing facilities.
Cactus League: Chris Baier gave a presentation on the history of the Cactus
League. He pointed out the benefits of changing fiom a flat fee to a percentage.
The money generated fiom the tax increase will allow the Cactus League to
pursue new teams and update existing facilities.
Arizona Tourism Business Retention Proposal: Steve Betts handed out the
proposal and asked for feedback.
Capital Plan Goals Presentation: Mike Welborn explained the capital finance
plan. Under the Plan, 5 1.6% of the $329 million will be paid for by
privatelvenue-related sources. The remaining 49.3% will be paid for by the
increased bed and car rental taxes.
Cardinals Presentation: Bill and Mike Bidwill thanked the members for their
efforts. Mike explained the challenges of playing in Sun Devil Stadium. He
stressed the tremendous amount of national and international exposure brought to
Arizona by the Cardinals through NFL broadcasts. The members then viewed a
video detailing the economic impact the Cardinals have on the state.
12. Future Meetings: The next meeting will be the Open House held at the Pera Club
on Tuesday, ~ k u a1r8"~ fi om 6:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. The following meeting will
be held on Friday, January 2 1"' fiom 8:00 a.m. to 1 1 :00 a.m. at the Cardinals
facility at 8701 S. Hardy in Tempe.
Stadium Plan B Advisory Task Force
Minutes of Meeting on January 21,2000 - 8:00 a.m.
Attendance
Members
Craig Berge
Mike Bidwill
Richard Burke
Bob Delgado
Joe Desplinter
Bob Fannin
Jim Grogan
Frank Kush
Bob Lavinia
Bob Marshall
Denise Meridith
John Ogden
Bill Peltier
Dave Radcliffe
Barbara Ralston
Dick Silverman
Mike Welborn
Steve Wheeler
Karen Wittmer
Technical Advisors
Chris Baier
Steve Betts
Chris Bowen
Ted Ferris
Peter Hayes
Mark McDermott
Guests
Bob Aylesworth
Bill Bidwill
Rick Collins
Kurt Freund
Ron Ober
Farrell Quinlan
John Snider
Ted Wellmeyer
1. Introduction: Mike Bidwill welcomed the Task Force members. Mike Welborn
explained the meeting agenda. He stressed that he wants every member to be
comfortable with the final report submitted to the Governor. He noted that the
next Task Force meeting will be on January 3 1st at 4:00 p.m. at the State Capitol
with invitations going to the Governor and legislature.
2. Polling Results: Farrell Quinlan of the Arizona Chamber of Commerce presented
the results of a poll conducted by the Chamber. The results show that 56% of
those polled support using private donations and tourism oriented taxes to build a
new stadium.
3. Open House on January 18,2000: Bob Marshall gave a presentation on the Open
House. It was estimated that 250 people attended as well as 20 Task Force
members and the media. Sixty survey forms were submitted.
It was noted that the attitudes of the guests seemed to shift from whether there
will be a stadium to when, where and how. There was also a great deal of positive energy
regarding potential sites.
. .
Recurring issues included site location; ratio of public vs. private funding;
avoiding a public vote; and the Fiesta Bowl's future.
The Task Force recommended the following:
Factor survey feedback into report
Task Force members need to be available to public and press
. Establish web site to continue this communication process Consider future open house
Bob Marshall will meet with representatives of cities to discuss criteria for
proposed sites.
4. Capital Funding Plan: Steve Betts gave a brief presentation on the capital funding
plan and its goal with a description of the funding sources.
5. PublicIPrivate Split: Ted Ferris presented a graph detailing the finance plans
publiclprivate split. According to Ted, the graph addresses Governor Hull's
admonition to minimize impact on the average Arizonan. The graph shows that
22 out of $329 million is $.07 on the dollar.
6. Tourism Industry: Dave Radcliffe reported on negotiations with the tourism
industry. The industry raised a concern regarding the guarantee of the promotion
money. Ted Ferris explained that the promotion money would be formula driven
as opposed to general appropriations. This would take it out of annual budget
debate and ensure that the industry receives it.
7. Site Selection Process: Karen Wittmer inquired about the site selection process
and whether the cities have been contacted. She also asked who or what entity
would be responsible for negotiating the best deal with the cities.
8. Presentations: A video on Super Bowl XXX was shown. Joe Desplinter, from
Ernst & Young, gave a presentation on economic impact. Chris Baier made a
presentation on the NFL. Chris stated that 60% of the people who attend the
Super Bowl are corporate decision makers. They decide where conferences are
held and make decisions about expansions and relocations. According to Chris,
there was a 50% increase in leads calls to the Department of Commerce during
the first quarter of 1996.
9. Final Report: Steve Betts presented the draft final report and requested input
from the Task Force members. Members were asked to contact Steve or Ted
Ferris with changes or concerns regarding the final draft.
10. Legislative Strategy: Steve Betts gave a presentation on legislative strategy.
Mike Bidwill thanked members for attending the meeting and offered tours of the
Cardinals' facility.
Economic Impact
P Economic impact of Cardinals (annual) $1 5 0+ million .
> Economic impact of Super Bowl XXX (event) $3 05+ million
Economic impact of Fiesta Bowl (annual) $1 3 3+ million
> Economic impact of Cactus League (annual) $200+ million (a)
- Potential Dodgers' impact $30 million
P Construction cost of stadium $329 million
- Construction cost to Arizona residents $22 million
The construction of the stadium will create several
thousand tradesman jobs over a three year period, several
hundred ongoing jobs at the stadium and generate significant
sales and income taxes for State and Local governments.
(a) Excludes local residents, team and vendor expenditures.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
flhursday, May 13,1999
CONTACT: Shawn Schoeffler
608350-0909
ECONOMIC IMPACT REACHES A RECORD $133 MILLION FOR
TMlS YEAR'S NATlONAL CHAMPIONSHIP TOSTiPOS FIESTA BOWL
TEMPE, Aria;. - This year's Tostitos Fiesta Bowl, the first unified national championship game in college
football history, attracted 69,000 out-of-state visitors and generated an overall economic impact of $1 33 million,
according to a study by the Arizona State University College of Business.
Researchers from Arizona State University also determined that the Tostitos Fiesta Bowl, which featured
Tennessee and Florida State, and related events:
Fostered 2,540 jobs;
Generated $12 million in state and local taxes; and
Q Produced $44 million in income to Arizona households and businesses.
'We commend our volunteers for working so hard to bring this game to Arizona, which resulted in this
kind of economic windfall for the state," Fiesta Bowl President Win Holden said. "The Fiesta Bowl is proud to
annually contribute to the economic prosperity of the State of Arizona."
The $133 million far exceeds the previous Fiesta Bowl best, which was set in 1996 when the national
championship game between Nebraska and Florida generated an economic impact of $96.8 million. The Fiesta
Bowl has now contributed an economic impact of more than $705 million throughout the bowl's 28-year history.
This year marked the beginning of the Bowl Championship Series, which included the Fiesta, Sugar,
Orange and Rose bowls and guaranteed a true national championship game for the first time in college football
history. As the highest finisher in the bidding process, the Fiesta Bowl had the option to choose this year to host
the title game.
"For the first time ever, people knew there would be a true national championship game, and it would be
played in the Tostitos Fiesta Bowl," Holden said. "That's why the economic impact exceeded even the most
optimistic forecasts."
Economic impact projections made prior to the game had the impact at $120 million. The ASU study
found that actual spending in every major category exceeded the early estimates by substantial margins.
According to the study, the 69,000 out-of-state visitors actually spent $58 million for lodging, food,
entertainment, and many other goods and services during their stay. An additional $13 million was spent by the
Fiesta Bowl organization and others associated with the activities. The third element of the overall impact reflects
a multiplier effect of $62 million in economic activity induced by the spending of visitors and private organizations.
- more -
Page 2
The study shows that non-local fans spent an average of $202 per day or a total of $683 per person
during the entire stay. The largest expenditures were for lodging, meals and beverages, entertainment and
shopping. Other results of the study included:
e The average paQ size of Fans was 3.2 persons.
The average length of stay was 3.3 nights.
More than 80 percent stayed in a hotel, motel or resort.
a More than 66 percent arrived on commercial airline, 20 percent by charier flight and 13 percent by
private vehicle.
Past economic impact figures generated by the Fiesta Bowl:
bactual Economic impact
$1 33,000,000
$46,320,000
$29,360,000
$96,800,000
$30,501,000
$1 8,200,000
$26,070,000
$25,500,000
$1 3,215,000
$23,356,000
$45,050,000
$24,743,592
$39,040,000
$20,100,000
$1 7,000,000
$1 8,000,000
$1 6,000,000
$1 8,500,000
$1 4,000,000
$1 2,000,000
$5,000,000
$8,000,000
$5,500,000
$4,500,000
$6,750,000
$3,000,000
$3,000,000
$2,000,000
Out-of-State Visitors
69,000
43,000
25,000
50,000
30,000
17,000
28,000
28,000
16,000
31,000
46,000
32,000
39,000
25,000
21,000
22,000
16,000
23,000
20,000
22,000
10,000
18,000
16,000
10,000
15,000
9,000
9,000
8,000
Prepared by
The Center for Business Research
L. William Seidman Research Institute
College of Business Arizona State University
For the
Arizona Department of Commerce
Arizona Office of Tourism
and
Super Bowl XXX Host Committee
May 1996
Economic lmuact Analysis
Super Bowl lo(W
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Super Bowl XXX contributed the following economic benefits to the Arizona economy:
Overall Economic Impact
Visitor Expenditures: The event attracted 89,000 out-of-town visitors
who spent $81.6 million during their stays in the Phoenix area and
$4.2 million in other communities in Arizona. Local shares of tour
packages, airline ticket costs, and private plane expenses contributed
an additional $22.9 million. (Spending by local residents is not included.)
Organizational Expenditures: The NFL, the Super Bowl XXX Host
Committee, and others associated with Super Bowl XXX contributed
$53.5 million in direct expenditures in staging the Super Bowl XXX.
Induced Expenditures: $143.6 million in economic activity induced
by visitor and organization expenditures. Most of the induced impacts
occurred outside of the hospitality sector.
Other Impacts
Employment Effects (full-time equivalent jobs):
(The peak number of jobs may have been much larger than this
full-time equivalent figure.)
Direct Employment - Super Bowl XXX Host Committee
Induced Employment - Demand for labor equivalent to 6,009 jobs
attributable to the induced effects from organizational expenditures
to stage the event and from the consumer spending by out-of-town
visitors.
Income Effects: Earnings flowing to Arizona households.
State and Local Tax Revenues:
State and local sales tax revenues
Personal tax revenues resulting from the induced economic activity
Indirect business taxes resulting from the induced economic activity
$305.8 million
$108.7 million
$53.5 million
$143.6 million
Long-Term Impacts: 1
I
$102.1 million
$27.1 million
$10.4 million
$7.8 million
$8.9 million
The international media coverage associated with Super Bowl XXX
can be expected to stimulate tourism and business activity in Arizona.
Super Bowl XXX
Direct Economic Impacts
The largest source of direct economic impact associated with Super Bowl XXX was the
consumer spending by out-of-town fans who traveled to the metro Phoenix area because of the
event. To develop estimates of these expenditures, the ASU research team conducted two surveys:
one of fans attending Super Bowl XXX and another of fans who attended major Super Bowl-related
events held prior to the game itself. Only those who indicated that they were not local residents were
asked to participate in the survey. A total of 716 usable responses was collected from non-local
attendees and 566 responses were gathered from non-local fans at the Super Bowl week events.
The information compiled by the survey relating to fans' lengths of stay in the Phoenix area,
their spending patterns, and certain other information about their visits was combined with
estimates of the number of non-local fans to produce estimates of visitor expenditures. The number
of non-local fans was estimated on the basis of attendance figures provided by the NFL and esti-mates
of the proportion of non-local fans compiled as part of the survey process.
The other major source of direct spending injections into the local economy was expenditures
directly associated with Super Bowl XXX by the Super Bowl XXX Host Committee and other
organizations, including the NFL and the media. Because of their confidential nature, expenditures
made by other business fums that sponsored various events associated with Super Bowl XXX have
not been included in the analysis, even though they also generated demands for local goods and
services.
Relatively minor direct employment and income effects were associated with the operations of
the Super Bowl XXX Host Committee organization itself - the staff it employed and its payroll.
Information concerning the number of jobs and associated payroll was provided by the Host Com-mittee.
Most of the income and employment effects associated with an event like the Super Bowl are
the result of the increase in economic activity induced by the direct expenditures by fans and by the
organizations involved in staging the event.
Thousands of local residents also attended the more than 100 events and activities, such as the
NFL Experience and the NFL Player's Party, that were held as part of Arizona's Super Bowl XXX
celebration. These events provided unique entertainment opportunities to large numbers of Arizo-nans,
but Super Bowl-related spending by the local population has NOT been included as part of the
direct economic impacts associated with Super Bowl XXX. As state residents, their consumer expen-ditures
do not generate substantial incremental economic activity within Arizona.
Induced Economic Impacts
The direct expenditures by the fans and by the Super Bowl XXX Host Committee and other
organizations induced additional business activity. These induced impacts were felt first in those
sectors that supplied goods and services to Super Bowl XXX or to the visitors. But, in turn, these
suppliers purchased goods and services from other local businesses, and their employees spent most
super Em1 XXK
SURVEY RESULTS
According to the figures provided by the NFL, attendance at Super Bowl XXX totaled 76,300.
The following section profiles samples of the two groups of non-local fans who responded to the ASU
surveys: (1) more than 66,000 non-local fans who attended the game and (2) 23,000 other fans who
traveled to the Phoenix area because of Super Bowl XXX and attended either of the two major pre-
Super Bowl events, the NFL Experience or the NFL Players Party, but did not actually attend the
game itself.
Visitor Characteristics
C Fans attending Super Bowl XXX came from all over the world, but one-third of the fans who
attended the game were from Texas (20 percent) or Pennsylvania (13 percent). Of the fans from
other places, the largest numbers came from California (13 percent) and New York (7 percent). Only
about 3 percent of game attendees surveyed were from outside the United States - most of those
from Canada or Mexico.
Among the out-of-town fans who did not attend the game, the largest numbers came from other
Arizona communities (23 percent) and from California (21 percent). Only 3 percent came from
outside the United States.
State (continued)
Attended
Game
Tennessee ........................................................................... 1%
Texas .................................................................................. 20
Utah ............!.. ...~ ................................................................... -
Vermont ............................................................................. 0.3
Virginia .............................................................................. 2
Washington ........................................................................ 1
WestVuginia ..................................................................... 0.3
Wisconsin .......................................................................... 1
Wyoming ........................................................................... -
Number of respondents: ..................................................... 678
TABLE 2
COUNTRY OF RESIDENCE
Country
Attended
Game
Canada .................................................................................. 1 %
France ................................................................................... 0-2
Germany ............................................................................... -
Ireland ................................................................................. 0.2
Mexico ................................................................................. 1
Netherlands ...................................................................... 0.2 .
Venezuela ............................................................................. 0.4
United States ......................................................................... 97
Did Not
Attend Game
Did Not
Attend Game
2%
-
0.5
-
0.5
-
Number of respondents: ........................................................ 696 264
More than three-quarters of the non-local fans surveyed at the game and two-thirds at the Super
Bowl week events were male.
Among those who attended the game, 87 percent were white, 5 percent Hispanic, and small
numbers of the other racidethnic groups were represented. The out-of-town fans who did not attend
the game were more ethnically diverse. Three-quarters were white, 14 percent Hispanic, 6 percent
Native American, and smaller numbers of the other groups were represented.
Super Bawl X X I
Those attending Super Bowl XXX came from affluent households. The median household
income was over $100,000, and 18 percent reported household incomes of $250,000 or more.
Household incomes of fans not attending the game were lower, with 7 percent below $25,000.
However, the median household income was still reported to be about $58,000, and one in six
respondents reported a-figure of $100,000 or more.
TABLE 4
HOUSEHOLD INCOME
Income Category
Attended Did Not
Game Attend Game
Under $25,000 ......................................................................
$25,000 - 49,999 ..................................................................
$50,000 - 74,999 ..................................................................
$75,000 - 99,999 ..................................................................
$100,000 - 149,999 ..............................................................
$150,000 - 199,999 ..............................................................
$200,000 - 249,999 ..............................................................
$250,000 - 299,999 ..............................................................
$300,000 or more ..................................................................
Number of respondents: .......................................................6. 56
super BOWI X)OX 11
More than two-thirds of fans who attended the game stayed in a hotel, motel, or resort in the
Phoenix area, and another fdth indicated that they were staying in a private home. Among the
out-of-town fans not attending the game, only 16 percent stayed in a hotel, motel, or resort; more
than two-thirds stayed in a private home.
TABLE 7
ACCOMMODATIONS
Attended Did Not
Game Attend Game
Hotel, motel, or resort ........................................................... 70% 16%
Rented hornelapartment ........................................................ 5 6
Private home ...................................................................... 22 68
Other ..................................................................................... 3 10
Number of respondents: ........................................................ 596 223
Three-quarters of the visitors who attended the game said that they had traveled to the Phoenix area
on a commercial airline. Another 12 percent arrived by charter flight. Slightly less than one-half of
fans who did not attend the game traveled to the Phoenix area by commercial airline. Forty-four
percent traveled in their personal vehicles.
TABLE 8
PRIMARY MODE OF TRkYSPORTATION
Attended Did Not
Game Attend Game
Scheduled airline .................................................................. 75% 48%
Charter flight ........................................................................ 12 2
Private plane ......................................................................... 1 2
Personal vehicle ................................................................... 7 44
Rental vehicle ....................................................................... 4 2
Other ..................................................................................... 1 2
Number of respondents: ........................................................ 682
Suuer Bowl X X I 13
During their visits to the metro Phoenix area, game attendees spent an average of $306 per day
or a total of more than $1,000 during the entire stay. The largest expenditures were for lodging,
meals and beverages, entertainment, and shopping during their stays. Fans who did not attend the
game spent an average of $135 per day or a total of $633.
In addition, 24 percent of fans who attended the game paid for at least part of their trip as part of
a tour package. The average price per person was about $1,700. Very few of the fans who did not
attend the game participated in package tours.
TABLE 10
DAILY EXPENDITURES
(Per Person)
Attended Did Not
Game Attend Game
Lodging ...............................................................................$ 68 $17
Meals and beverages ........................................................... 48 27
Groceries ............................................................................. 8 7
Entertainmentlrecreation .................................................... 75 28
Local travel ........................................................................ 2 1 18
Shopping ............................................................................. 84 35
Other ................................................................................... 2 3
Total ................................................................................. $306 $135
Number of respondents: ...................................................... 568 205
ECONOMIC IMPACTS
Direct Impacts
Metro Phoenix
Based on reported attendance figures and information from the ASU surveys, an estimated
89,000 persons traveled to the Phoenix area because of Super Bowl XXX.
During their stays in the Phoenix area, these visitors and their travel parties spent an estimated
$8 1.6 million, including $16.7 million on lodging, $13.6 million for food and drink, $19.5 million in
entertainment-related expenditures, and $22.2 million on shopping.
TABLE 12
VISITOR EXPENDITURES
Category Total Expenditures
Lodging .................................................................... $16,650,000
Meals and beverages ................................................. 13,550,000
Groceries ................................................................... 2,620,000
Entertainmentlrecreation .......................................... 19,540,000
Local travel ............................................................... 6,450,000
Shopping ................................................................... 22,200,000
Other ......................................................................... 580,000
Total .......................................................................... $81,590,000
Ln addition to direct visitor expenditures, the local shares of tour packages, airline ticket costs,
and expenses for private planes conhibuted $22.9 million. Direct expenditures by the Super Bowl
XXX Host Committee, along with local spending by the NFL and others involved in putting on
super Bowl XXX, totaled an additional $53.5 million. Other direct impacts included the Super Bowl
XXX Host Committee's 3 1 jobs and $820,000 payroll.
Other Arizona Communities
While in Arizona, 14 percent of game attendees and 15 percent of the fans who did not attend
said that they also had overnight stays in other areas of the state. During these stays, the visitors
spent an additional $4.2 million in other communities.
Overall Economic Impacts
Combining direct impacts with all of the induced or multiplier effects, the total overall effects
of the organizational expenditures and the expenditures by non-local visitors will ultimately create
economic activity of $305.8 million, $102.1 million in earnings, and a total demand for labor equiva-lent
to 6,040 full-time jobs in the Arizona economy. Given the short-term nature of the event, the
peak number of jobs associated with Super Bowl XXX may have been much larger than this full-time
equivalent figure.
TABLE 14
STATEWIDE ECONOMIC IMPACTS
Expenditures Earnings Employment1
Direct Impacts
Visitor Expenditures $108,710,000 - -
Organizational Expenditures 5 3,480,000 $820,000 3 1
Induced Impacts 143,610,000 101,310,000 6,009
Total Overall Impacts $305,800,000 $102,130,000 6,040
1 Full-time equivalent jobs
While about one-half of the economic activity and two-thirds of the jobs created are in services,
other sectors of the local economy are also affected. The economic activity resulting from Super
Bowl XXX creates demand for the goods and services produced by local manufacturers, wholesale
distributors, financial service companies, retail establishments, and other sectors of the state's
economy and provides jobs for Arizonans working for those f m s .
Net Economic Impacts
The month of January is in the peak visitor season for the Phoenix area, and hotel occupancy
rates are normally at high levels even without the attraction of an event like Super Bowl XXX. An
estimated 89,000 Super Bowl fans traveled to the metro Phoenix area in January, and an estimated
50,000 of them stayed in hotels, motels, and resorts during their stays. Thus, many of these out-of-town
visitors who came because of Super Bowl XXX stayed in hotel rooms that otherwise may have
been filled by other customers.
At the same time, however, hotel revenues were up significantly compared to the same period in
1995, even though occupancy was approximately equivalent to year-earlier levels. On a similar note,
sales tax figures for January 1996 reported by the Arizona Department of Revenue were substantially
higher than previous-year revenues - restaurant and bar collections were up 14 percent and hotel/
motel collections were 20 percent higher.
It is very difficult to accurately measure the extent to which normal convention/tourism-related
economic activity may have been displaced by Super Bowl XXX. But it is possible to estimate incre-mental
expenditures associated with Super Bowl XXX as one way of evaluating the net economic
impact of the event. The major components of incremental spending within the economic impact
model used for this study include the following:
(1) The additional amount of expenditures resulting from Super Bowl fans spending more than
hotel guests that they may have displaced;
(2) The amount spent by fans not staying in hotels;
(3) The spending in other parts of the state by Super Bowl fans;
(4) The amount spent by the Super Bowl Host Committee and non-local organizations to stage
Super Bowl XXX (adjusted for lodging expenditures).
Even making the extreme assumption that each Super Bowl fan who stayed in a hotel displaced
another guest, the incremental visitor spending by the 89,000 out-of-town fans is estimated to have
been $60.3 million, and the incremental spending by the Super Bowl XXX Host Committee and oth-ers
to put on Super Bowl XXX is estimated to have been $48.9 million (with adjustments to hotel
expenditures). Counting both these incremental expenditures plus the induced effects that would
have resulted from these direct expenditures, the total net impacts of Super Bowl XXX are estimated
to be at least $205.9 million in economic activity, $69.2 million in additional income to Arizona
households, and labor demand equivalent to 4,000 full-time equivalent jobs for the Arizona
economy.
To assess another aspect of the long-term economic impacts of visits to Super Bowl XXX,
visitors were also asked if they were an owner or key decision maker in a business fm. If so, they
were then questioned about their impressions of the Phoenix area as a place to hold future business
meetings. Among those who attended the game, 50 percent said that they would seriously consider
holding future business meetings in the Phoenix area. Fewer of those fans who did not attend the
game actually identified themselves as owner/decision makers, and slightly less than one-half
indicated that they would consider Phoenix as a site for future meetings. The survey also
inquired about their impression of the Phoenix area as a place to expand~locateb usiness operations.
About 20 percent of owner/decision makers who attended the game said that they would seriously
consider expansion or relocation to the Phoenix area based on the experience of their trip to Super
Bowl XXX. Those owner/decision makers who came to Phoenix but did not attend the game were
more positive, with 29 percent indicating that they would seriously consider the Phoenix area as a
business site.
TABLE 17
IMPACT OF ATTENDANCE ON BUSINESS DECISIONS
Attended Game
Yes
Ownerkey decision maker in a business fm 54%
Consider holding a meeting in the Phoenix area 50
Consider expanding your company's present operations
in the Phoenix area 15
Consider establishing business operations
in the Phoenix area
Did Not Attend Game
Yes
Ownerkey decision maker in a business firm 33%
Consider holding a meeting in the Phoenix area 47
Consider expanding your company's present operations
in the Phoenix area 20
Consider establishing business operations
in the Phoenix area
Total
No NIA Respondents
46% 684
Total
No NIA Respondents
67% 259
Governor's Stadium Plan "B" Advisory Task Force
Mission Statement
To provide Arizona with additional opportunities for improved quality of life and economic
development by building a first class multi-purpose stadium facility to:
Retain the state's NFL franchise
Capture a place in the Super Bowl rotation every four to five years
Maintain the Fiesta Bowl's premier ranking
Attract additional events and activities:
Sports and entertainment events such as soccer and concerts, etc.
Trade shows
Tourism
Provide the community with a comfortable venue for major public gatherings.
This will improve the quality of life for the citizens of Arizona by stimulating commercial
enterprise development, job opportunities, additional tax revenues, and enhanced civic prestige
and pride.
It is imperative that any public financing minimize the impact on Arizona residents while
improving their quality of life and opportunities for economic development.
CACTUS LEAGLT
LOCATIONS AND LEASE EXPIIUTIONS
Lease
Team Host Citv Stadium Expiration date
1. Oakland A's Phoenix Phoenix Municipal 2004
2. Anaheim Angels Tempe Tempe Diablo 2007
3. San Francisco Giants Scottsdale Scottsdale Stadium 2008
4. Colorado Roclues Tucson Hi-Corbett 201 1
5. Chicago Cubs Mesa Dwight Patterson 201 1,2016
6. Milwaukee Brewers Phoenix Maryvale Ballpark 2012
7. Anzona Diamondbacks Tucson Tucson Electric Park 20 13
8. Chicago Whitesox Tucson Tucson Electric Park 2013
9. Seattle Mariners Peoria Peoria Sports Complex 2014
10. San Diego Padres Peoria Peona Sports Complex 2014
EVENTS [OR PROPOSED NFL STADlUM 1
POTENTIAL NON-NFL EVENTS
Bared on our review of events held in other domed stadiums in the United States arid
the National Association of Consumer Show's event list, we have categorized the cvcnts
that could polentially be held in the proposed Arizona domed stadium. The fullowing
list dues not include convention or trade show related evenu that could be held in a
stadium adjoining a cr~nvelitionc enter.
-3 Sporling Events
> NCAA Football
Division I1 Playoffs
Fiesta Bowl
> NCAA Basketball Toumam~nts
b Pac-10 Basketball Playoffs
> Iiigh School Football Playoffs
t: High School Track & Field Meets
> Soccer
*:* Entertainment
> Concerts
b Award Ceremonies
2. Professional Wrestling
9 Motor Sports
b Monster Truck R3llicls
8 > Tractor Pulls - > Supercross
*:* Political Events
k National Conventions
> State Conventions
a:* Religious [vents
8 L Religious Rallies
*:* Consurner Shows
Agricultural Farm
P Antiques
> Auto Shows
k Boatinghtarine Shows
B k Bridal Shows
P Business Shows
> Collec~iblesS hows
> Computer Shows
P Craft/Hobby Shows-
B
k EthnidCultural Shows
b City & State Fairs
k Food & Beverage Shows
% Gdrden Shows
EVENTS FOR PROPOSED NFL STADlUM 2
NON-NFL EVENT ANAL YSlS
In order to estimate the number of potential non-NFL annual events thal could be held
in new domed stddium, we contxted officials of eight domed stadiums and obtained
detailed event information for c)ie part three years from four. We are continuing to
solicit the additional information from the others and will present at a future rr~celing.
The stadiums used as a basis for comparison were:
*:* The Alan~odome, located in San Antonio, Texas
*:- The Kingdome, located in Seattle, Washington
-3 The Metrodome, located in Minneapolis, MN
*:- The RCA Dome, located in Indianapolis, Indiana
D
It should be noted that two of these facilities are associated with convention centers.
The ~lamodorneis less than a milc from the San Antonio Convention Center and thc
RCA Dome is attached to the Indiana Convention Center. In evaluating thee two
facilities for comparisor~ purposes, we excluded convention-related events from the
following hble.
Bascd on the above comparison, it is reasonable to assume 12 to 15 non-NFL everlls
and consumer stlows averaging 25 to 50 days and 250,000 to 500,000 in attendance,
would use the proposcd domes stadium each year. If the Lcility were located adjacent
to a c:onvet.rtion center (within walking distance), an additional two or three events a
m year could use the facility.
7. , . :... "!;::..-. .....,,,.!:!.:R. ":;.' . ..- ,,.:,..:- ;, '1::'' .-.-..: :.... .. .. .. . " .,,.,;,:,, ;.:.::.: ::,;, .......... . . . . . . , , .,{..%: .' , , ............... . , .! -...... ..+..';.,- .- &% :.,
, .. 'Y...7,. . , ; :a,:,. "., , , , "":'..:(: ' - - . . P ' .:. .,. ,.* , ..,. . . . .. . . . . . . . . ,.
-i. ...". :.;. ;...L.. , , .. . ... .. :P .L ,. 4 "' . r~:.:l.: l...i.; , . . . .:;:'..::::.. .... . . . . . . . .... ..:. .? ,. ,,.. , .. -.- .. ..:. . . . .......,...........,. ........ ..... ,...*,. ", . . . . . . . ....." ....:..,......:.;...:..I...:..:.:.:.:..:. . :. .. .:;: .
Facility
Alarnodome
1997 12 23 598,000
1998 11 2 6 320,000
1399MD) 10 16 188,000
Kingdomc! -
1997 14 5 1 681,576
1998 16 5 2 637,483
Metrodome
1997 - 209 522,000
1998 - 222 457,000
1 999 - 220 400,000
RCA Dorrre
1997 27 - 678,000
1998 2 1 - 553,000
1999 23 - 800,000
Event Days Attendance
EVENTS FOR PROPOSED NFL STADIUM 3
CRITICAL FACTORS EFFECTING MARKETABI LlTY
f Location
a:* Proximity of First Class Hotel Rooms and Meeting Spxc
*3 Parking
*:* Proximity of Food, Beverage, Entertainment
*3 Proximity of Specialty Retail
*:* Transportation Infnstruc$ure
-3 TransidLight Rail + Interstate Highway System
-3 Air
-3 Booking PoliciedFacility Rental
Governor's Stadium Task Force
er 16,1999
B
x. 1.5 square miles
D
B. urban environnaaent
cs%ce/aaaixed arsc
b
D
ICEPI CAES PROJECTS
I
@ 2.2 acre urban park
rn e 3,465 space tfndergraund
pitrkiUlg garage
D
D
@ Performing arts facility
@ 827 seat main theater
@ Flexible stage tlneater with
150-379 seats
@ $20 milliog~ project
Monroe. 2nd to 3rd Street
Papago freesvay, 3rd Sfreei to 3rd Avenue
D
t
5 Historic 1929 theatre
5 8,400 seats
@ $14 million renovt~tioap
I)
Adams, 2nd to 3rd Avenue
I
I,
ckson to Lincoln, 7th Avenue to 7th Street
I,
I
@ 6 level, 550,000 s.f. Facility
@ Public Assembly Atrium
I)
Washington to Jefierson, 4th to 6th Avenues
Opens Wiotea- 1999
e Camdell Property Trust
ca 332 unit Itaxury apartment
a 3 story B~railding, structured
e Fitness facility, business cea~ter
;tnd community c%ublaoose
Van Buren & 7th Street
8
8
larriott Hotel
rn
Jefferson, 1st to 3rd Streets
rn
acriWc Railroad-
active destiaation
eases viabiliQ far
for fans
other events
prnent of America West Arena and Bank
PROPOS
DUNLAP AVE
NORTHERN AVE
GLENDALE AVE
BETHANY HOME RD
CAMELBACK RD
INDIAN SCHOOL RD
THOMAS RD
MC DOWELL RD
VAN BUREN ST
BUCKEYE RD
BROADWAY RD
SOUTHERN AVE
BASELINE RD
DOBBINS RD
ELLIOT RD
WARNER RD
RAY RD
CHANDLER BLVD
PECOS RD
CIRCLE MOUNTAIN RD
DESERT HILLS DR
JOY RANCH RD
CLOUD RD
CAREFREE HWY
LONE MOUNTAIN RD
DlXlLETA DR
DYNAMITE BLVD
JOMAX RD
HAPPY VALLEY RD
PINNACLE PEAK RD
DEER VALLEY DR
MAY0 BLVD
BELL RD
GREENWAY RD
THUNDERBIRD RD
CACTUS RD
SHEA BLVD
December 16, 1999
B Ned G. Giuliano
'.'?,J
Lmnard W Copple -. - __"
Michael Welborn, Chair
Governor's Stadium Plan "B" Advisory Task Force
Bank One Arizona NA
201 N. Central Avenue
Phoenix. Arizona 85001
Dear Mike:
I am pleased to respond to the request from the Governor's Stadium Plan
"B" Advisory Task Force regarding the identification of potential sites for a
proposed stadium for the Arizona Cardinals.
The City of Tempe has identified three sites within its municipal
boundaries, as well as a fourth site that is partially located in both the City
of Tempe and the City of Mesa (see attached). The City of Tempe does
not own any of these sites, however, property owners of and within each
of these sites have indicated a willingness to enter into discussions with
the Task Force about locating the stadium on their property. Additionally,
the City of Tempe is willing to participate in discussions with the
landowners and the Task Force.
I look forward to a meaningful discussion with the Task Force regarding
these four proposed stadium sites and the criteria by which the Task
Force will be evaluating their potential to be selected. Thank you for your
time and consideration.
In Service, w Neil G. Giuliano
Mayor
cc: Governor's Stadium Plan "B" Advisory Task Force Members
Attachments
Site 1 -Tempe
Size: 63 Acres
Parcels: I
Ownership: Papago Park Center / SRP
Site 2 - Tempe
Size: 146 Acres
Parcels: 77
Ownership: Multiple
Hohokam
Site 3 - Tempe
Size: 62 Acres
Parcels: 19
Ownership: Multiple I Arizona Board of Regents
Site 3a - Tempe I Mesa
Size: I70 Acres
Parcels: 1
Ownership: City of Mesa, Arizona Board of Regents,
Maricopa County
Stadium Location Options
NORTH w
GOVEKi0R7S STADni'M TASK FORCE
CF3TERIA FOR SITE SELECTION
January 18,2000
The purpose of this document is to suggest the criteria to be used in the
selection of the site for the proposed new NFL Stadium. The attributes
listed were compiled in an attempt to initiate the process and should not be
interpreted as being all-inclusive andor exclusive. No ranking andor
preference is implied by the order of the list.
The objective is to develop a Multi-Purpose Stadium Facility suitable for
football, soccer, musical concerts, trade shows, and other events in order
to meet the approval of the primary stakeholders such as the Governor, the
State Legislature, the Fiesta Bowl Committee, the NIX Super Bowl
Committee, the Arizona Cardinals organization, citizens of Arizona, the
tourism industry, and others.
The proposed attributes supporting the site selection criteria are:
Ability to Support Existing Ancillary Businesses and to Serve as
Catalyst for Further Development
The proposed site should maximize the incremental economic benefit
for the State and local communities. This will occur by supporting
existing Arizona businesses andlor spurring new investment such as:
+ Convention facilities
+Hotels
+ Parking facilities
+Restaurants
+ Entertainment venues
+Retail establishments
park in^ Requirements
The proposed site should meet the parking requirements of the facility
and its users regarding a variety of factors such as:
+Minimum nurnber of parlung spaces equal to *25% of stadium
capacity, wihn proximity of the facility
+ Cost of structures
+Cost of additional land for surface parlung
+Event day control
+ Event day revenue
*Exact number to be determined
Access
The proposed site should meet vehicular access (private and public)
froG allareas of the Valley within a given time frame using ireeways,
arterial streets and collector sleets. Such access should accommodate
all proximate venues. Also, the site should meet pedestrian traffic
accessibility requirements from nearby parking lots and parking
structures (if applicable).
Environmental Considerations
The proposed site should be environmentally sound and meet
applicable FAA regulations for flight paths and noise levels.
Speed to Delivery
The proposed site should accommodate the shortest acquisition and
development time line possible, examples: single site ownership
versus multiple ownership and environmental remediation of the land.
Image and Visibilitv
The proposed site should meet the expectations of the Anzona
Tourism Alliance, convention and visitor's bureaus, and chambers of
commerce as a Valley "icon" to be shown on worldwide TV from
aerial (blimp) and ground views.
The "Riht Deal" Structure
The proposed site should meet the right site acquisition structure
considering appropriate terms, conditions and methods of control. The
host community will fund costs "outside the dnpline" such as:
+Site acquisition costs
+Site development costs compared on a "ready to build" basis
including: utilities, soil engineering, grading and drainage, zoning,
use approvals, etc.
+Parking requirements
Suitability of Land Parcel
Site should contain sufficient acreage, and be configured such that the
field can retract with some minimal outside seating, and so that
additional parking can be made available, if necessary.
Other: (Please add one or more attributes if you deem necessary)
Existing & Planned Stadium finding hformalion
Summary Table
New Seattle Seahawks Stadium
Ford Stadium
New Broncos Stadium
New Steelers Stadium
Paul Brown Stadium
Cleveland Stadium
Nashville Stadium
PSINet Stadium
Raymond James Stadium
Jack Kent Cooke Stadium
Alltel Stadium
TWA Dome
Ericsson Stadium
Proposed Stadium Fundng Information
New Houston Stadium
New Hartford Stadium
New San Francisco Stadium
I . .
,-
SUMMAORFY N FL STADIUFMU NDING
hRfegc d~eantl~bu imltu ms 'm4.2 692% 3(XfR! $1820 -2 [
b-e of Planned ltadiume $3167 73.796 283Dh -5 f%=2 1
PAGE 1
Team, City, State: Seattle Seahawks (PEL), Seattle, Washington
General Description: The $400 million footbaIVsoccer stadium and exhibition center is scheduled to open in 2002. The facility
will be owned by the Public Stadium Authority (PSA) and operated by the Seahawks.
Public Participation: Revenue generated from new, sports related lottery games will generate $127.9 million to the project.
King County will fund $101.4 million with revenues collected from a sales tax attributable to events in the
Stadium / Exhibition Center. Approximately $56.0 million in revenue will be collected from facility
admissions and parking taxes to assist in the funding. Additional funding includes $15.0 million in
proceeds collected from King County's hotel-motel tax.
Private Participation: Paul G. Allen (owner of the Seahawks franchise) will contribute $100.0 million to the project (including
$50.0 million in upfront cash).
King County Hotel/lMotel
Tax Revenue
PSLs and Owner
Equity ~ontribution\ , $15.0 million
$100.0 million
Parking Tax Revenue
Total Development Costs:
$400.3 million *
Public Participdion:
75% i
Private Participation:
25%
New State Lotte
(*) Represents total complex consisting of an exhibition center and stadium. Stadium construction cost is estimated
at approximately $305 million.
Sales Tax Revenue
$101.4 million
Ticket Taxes: Applicable ticket taxes will include a 10.0% admissions tax.
Property Taxes: Property taxes are not applicable since the facility will be publicly owned.
General Lease Terms: A master lease agreement is currently being negotiated between the PSA and the Seahawks. Based on
conversations with the team, the Seahawks will operate the facility with annual rental payments to the
PSA anticipated to approximate $850,000 for the first year of operations (with subsequent years' rent
indexed to the CPI). It is also expected that the public sector will be provided with 20 percent of net
revenues generated through the operations of the exhibition center. All other stadium revenues are
expected to be retained by the team and all fixed and game day stadium operating expenses will be the
responsibility of the Seahawks.
Other Development / The Seahawks will be responsible for all cost overruns related to the stadium and exhibition hall.
Lease Issues:
PAGE 3
Team, City, State: Detroit Lions (NFL), Detroit, Michigan
General Description: The Lions plan to move into the new 70,000-seat, multipurpose Ford Stadium in the year 2002. The new stadium,
also to be accompanied by a new practice facility, is being built in conjunction with a new MLLB stadium for the
Detroit Tigers. The facility owner will be the DetroitlWayne County Stadium Authority and the operator of the
facility will be the Detroit Lions.
Public Participation: The Downtown Development Authority (DDA) contributed $70.0 million to the project, of which $40.0 million
comprised the County purchase of Tigers facility rights and $30.0 million in interest installment payments made by
the DDA. The County funded $20.0 million toward the project with proceeds from the sale of certain held
properties, Another $20.0 million from the Authority for parking rights (which were in turn purchased by the
Tigers) was used to fund the project.
Private Participation: The Lions have committed to contribute $70.0 million for the stadium. A corporate contribution of $50.0 million,
of which approximately $40.0 million will be generated through the sale of facility naming rights and the remaining
$10.0 million from sponsorship revenue comprise the balance of the private funding.
Detroit Lions
Detroit Development Agency
$230.0 milhn
Public Partkipdon:
$10.0 million
Pn'vate Parlicipation:
Naming Rights
$40.0 million
PAGE 4
NEW BRONCOSS TADIU(M2002)
------